Cassam Uteem, former President of the Republic of Mauritius, International IDEA Board member
Excellencies, Distinguished Fellow Participants,
Ladies and gentlemen,
Chairperson of IDEA’s Council;
I am most thankful for the invitation extended to me to participate in this important meeting, the IDEA Roundtable on Democracy and Diversity. As board member of International IDEA, I would like to associate myself with the Secretary General, Vidar Helgesen, in thanking the Norwegian Government and People for the nice facilities they put at our disposal for the purposes of this Roundtable.
I also thank the resource persons, the distinguished panellists, the moderator and all the participants for their useful input and contributions which have made this Roundtable both stimulating and I dare say, memorable.
I suppose you do not expect me to summarize or to make a synthesis of the various interventions we have heard throughout this afternoon’s sessions. I wouldn’t be able to even if I wanted it! However, my few remarks will borrow heavily from them. But, let me, at the very outset; say that I am convinced that we urgently need more of such fora to exchange views and learn from each other’s rich experience in diversities which characterize the world we live in to be able to establish peace. Peace, the search of which, as the current Director General of UNESCO said in one of his speeches, it is not an option but an imperative.
I concur with the view (expressed here and elsewhere) that diversity or pluralism is as old as human kind itself. It manifests itself in many variegated forms: ethnicity, race, class, language, gender, creed – to name just a few.
In the history of humanity, diversity has been, by and large, a source of conflict rather than a source of harmonious relation. Wars, slavery, genocide, apartheid, discrimination and human displacement such as the one we have recently seen in Darfur, Sudan, for example, have everything to do with conflicts which emanate from diversity.
All these phenomena are irrefutable pointers to the fact that human beings, even in our age and time, do not always or spontaneously regard diversity as a positive element. Linking diversity to identity, many societies would argue: you are either for us, if you share the same identity with us, or against us, if you have a different identity (We are WE, You are YOU). The pre 1994 violent history of Apartheid in South Africa or the 1994 genocide in Rwanda are clear illustrations of the way these societies have dealt with diversity.
On the other hand, and very fortunately, we have examples of societies where diversity has been considered and treated as an asset rather than a liability: for example the post 1994 South Africa, which has been hailed as the ‘rainbow nation’; India, which has been dubbed a ‘nation of nations’ and the melting pot of society of the United States of America, in spite of a few hiccups here and there. I could take the case of my own country, Mauritius, where pluralism and fundamental human rights are entrenched in the Constitution and where the concept of unity in diversity has, over the years, allowed the various ethnic, cultural, linguistic and religious components of society to live together peacefully, not to say harmoniously.
The recently transformed African Union is another pointer to renewed efforts in Africa to embrace the same concept of unity in diversity: 53 nations, diverse in terms of geographical size, political and economic systems and resource endowment, coming together to pursue a common agenda of integration, development and democratization.
Many speakers who took the floor earlier, seem to agree that democracy, with its shared universal values, presents one useful system of managing diversity in a way that is both effective and sustainable. Indeed, democracy provides the cultural and political space necessary for expressing diversity and giving shape at the same time to the nature of democracy itself.
Obviously, each society will set up its own institutional framework to manage such diversities and harness the relationship between democracy and diversity, thus engendering what has come to be known as ‘inclusive or participatory democracy’.
It has also clearly emerged from various presentations here and also in literature available, that there is no one-size-fits-all solution to the way different societies manage diversity through democracy. Constitutional and electoral systems, political and institutional responses to the challenge posed by what I would refer to as the diversity of democracy differ from one country or society to another.
South Africa, for example, has used a proportional representation electoral system to promote minority participation in politics; Mauritius has a constituency-based electoral system that provides for the allocation of a number of seats to the ‘best losers’ on the basis of their ethno-religious origins. Both countries’ constitutions do recognize minority rights and provide substantial mechanisms for protecting and promoting such rights.
A key achievement of this forum has been the realization that one of the fundamental qualities of a democracy is the ability of citizens to express their diversities in a way characterized by tolerance and inclusiveness. No democracy can claim maturity and strength unless it provides space for its citizens to, as it were, celebrate their diversities, the expression which the SG of IDEA prefers.
This view tallies with what the concept paper argues, namely that diversity tends to fare better in those societies where people are free and are encouraged to assume not just one single identity, but multiple identities.
It goes without saying that in times of crisis and uncertainty, especially when there are widespread feelings of insecurity, a single and all embracing identity may overshadow all others, thus precipitating hegemony. For example, in many developing countries, identities associated with traditional village, clan and region may be stronger realities that those linked to a remote state or nation.
The challenge in this situation is how to harness such multiple diversities and identities through policy and institutional frameworks that embody tolerance, inclusiveness and peaceful co-existence.
This remains a huge practical challenge especially in many of the emerging democracies and post-conflict societies in Africa, Latin America, Eastern Europe, Asia and the Arab World. And this is a challenge we must face and tackle in order to ensure that the current wave of globalization turns out to be one that embodies unity through diversity, in the interdependence of cultures and the equality of nation states.
I am of those who are vehemently opposed to views that reduce globalization to uniformity, homogeneity and like-mindedness. To me, globalization is the celebration of diversity, a way of opening up things to divergence and multiplicity.
Before concluding my remarks here, lest we open up yet another debate on globalization that would take several roundtables to reach the satisfactory conclusion of ‘we agree to disagree’ I shall refer to the oft debated question, taken up by our distinguished panellist of whether or not Islam is a religion that is compatible with democracy, and I shall quote what I consider to be a very interesting example of how two countries, with distinct and diametrically opposed traditions and systems but having democracy in common, have come to deal with the very delicate issue of religion and religious inclusiveness, by using similar means: Norway and Mauritius.
Because most of the Muslim countries in the world are either undemocratic monarchies or dictatorships, it has been erroneously concluded that Islam is not compatible with democracy and even with modernity. Islamic culture is presented as a stumbling block for democratic polity. Nothing could be more incongruous and farther away from the truth as would be the assertion that Christianity was against democracy and modernity. The struggle between the church and princely rulers on the one hand and the church and secular elements of society on the other finally led to the victory of the latter and western societies opened up to democracy and modernity as recently as the 19th century.
Is there any reference in the Quran, the sacred book which Muslims believe contains God’s instructions and injunctions, regarding democracy? Many of you would probably be surprised to learn that the religious text lays emphasis on what it calls the Shura, the Arabic word for consultation. The Prophet of Islam was required to consult his people in worldly matters and Muslims are required to consult each other in the secular affairs. Such consultation and modern day representative democracy may not be exactly similar. However, modern democracy and the Quranic injunction to consult people are the same in spirit.
To some contemporary Muslim scholars, notably Indian author and thinker Asghar Ali Engineer, the concept of Shura (or consultation) means the democratic process and the constitution of proper democratic institutions of which elections are a necessary requirement, e.g. representative councils or parliaments. In Islam, any authority forcibly constituted or acquired by power of arms can have no legitimacy whatsoever. The institution of monarchy or military dictatorship did not exist during the prophet’s time, 14 centuries ago.
The absence of democracy in some Muslim countries is therefore by no means on account of Islamic teachings or incompatibility of democracy with Islam but due to a host of factors – political, historical and cultural. The imperialist powers of Europe and later of the United States played an important role in shaping things in those countries, and continue to do so even today. There is a deep urge for democracy and popular government among the people of those but it is frustrated by authoritarian rulers. Islam as a religion does not prevent the establishment of democracy. It is the powerful vested interests, both internal and external, that deny its establishment.
Let us now see how Norway and Mauritius have each dealt with the issue of religious inclusiveness. Norway is a rich, North European country, with a more or less homogeneous society and a firmly established State Church System – the Lutheran Church – constantly reaffirming its Christian cultural heritage.
Mauritius, on the other hand, is a middle-income, third world African country, situated in the Indian Ocean, with a secular constitution and a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural and multi-religious society. The secular state of Mauritius, as I have just learnt, sub continental model, has striven to stand at equidistance or principled distance from the main religions practised there while Norway has lately opened up to religions other than the Lutheran Church.
To ensure religious pluralism and inclusiveness, both countries have introduced a per capita subsidy applicable to all the religions i.e. the State provides funds to all of the religions to allow them to thrive and fulfil their mission. In addition, the municipality of Oslo provides financial support to Muslim Quranic schools. Likewise, in Mauritius, the salaries of teachers working in such schools are met from public funds. In other words, the state Church of Norway finances its vigorous opposition which Secular Mauritius encourages the blossoming of religions and religious values. These seemingly contradictory objectives are set and met in the interest of peace, peaceful co-existence and in the higher interest of the nation.
There is a newly-coined expression given to such initiatives, ‘thinking out of the box’. This is what is required of our political leaders. With these few words, it is now my singular honour to declare this Roundtable officially closed.
I thank you for your kind attention.
