The Civic Inclusion of Minoritized Communities in Multilevel States

• In Event: Local Organizations and Immigration Political Incorporation

Abstract

The most widely-used measures of democracy have reported declines in the health of democracy around the world, and international individual-level data suggests that commitments to and satisfaction with democracy are weak (Wike, Silver, and Castillo 2019). At the same time, there is broad support for the concepts of direct and representative democracy, especially in countries with strong democratic traditions (Wike et al. 2017). These attitudes seem contradictory, but they are compatible when we consider how anti-establishment populists claim to endorse democracy while challenging liberal democracy. Liberal democracy is built on a foundation of norms that protect human rights, civil rights, civil liberties, and individual freedoms for all people. However, populists claim that liberal norms, institutions, and policies weaken democracy and cause harm to “the people.” For example, populists will regularly argue that “outsiders” (typically immigrants or minoritized religious and cultural groups), protected by liberal norms and institutions, are causing harm to the country’s culture, economy, and security.

Populists accept popular sovereignty, which allows them to describe themselves as “democratic”, but they are skeptical about constraints on power and especially individual freedoms, because their concept of “the people” is homogenous. This narrow definition of “the people” cannot stand in a liberal democracy, where the protection of free expression of diverse ideas, cultures, and belief systems, is foundational. Ultimately, the health of democracy cannot be fully evaluated with democratic institutions or attitudes towards those institutions. The health of a democracy depends on whether members of minoritized groups are able to claim citizenship, and the political and social response to the expressions of citizenship coming from members of minoritized groups.

My comparative research examines these very questions. I ask, how do national and local models of political and social inclusion motivate the scale and nature of civic engagement among key minoritized groups (Muslims, migrants, and racial/ethnic minorities)? I hypothesize that the nature (active vs. passive) and objective (protest vs. support) of engagement is responsive to the civic climate, communicated through politics of inclusion. I focus on the cases of Canada, the UK, and the US, based on the way the three states institutionalize varieties of multiculturalism. Multiculturalism involves the recognition, and even encouragement, of cultural and religious particularism as bases for political belonging. Federal Canada is an explicitly multicultural settler state, where state and society are expected to facilitate the expression of cultural identity within the Canadian cultural mosaic (Reitz, 2012). In the US, the government and legal system is very tolerant and protective of religious expression and cultural diversity, but it takes a rather hands-off approach to the formal incorporation of minority communities (Brubaker, 2001). The UK’s multicultural approach falls between that of the US and Canada. There is no central law promoting multiculturalism in the UK, but multiculturalism manifests in political rhetoric, institutional structures, scholarly analysis, and commercial marketing. The UK government also endorses cultural diversity, special treatment of cultural groups, and anti-discrimination (Ashcroft & Bevir, 2018; Mathieu, 2018).

The comparison of these three models of multiculturalism provides an opportunity to compare political approaches and make informed recommendations relating to the institutionalization of multiculturalism. However, within these countries, democracy functions at multiple levels: the US and Canada are federal states and the UK devolves powers to its constituent nations. How does minority inclusion work when state and sub-state inclusionary messages conflict? Within each state context, I examine a sub-state context that substantially differs in its approach to minority inclusion to examine the civic engagement and attitudes of minoritized groups. I will compare the inclusion of minoritized populations in Canada to a subset in Quebec (less inclusive), populations in the UK to a subset in Scotland (more inclusive), and populations in the US to a subset in California (more inclusive) and Texas (less inclusive).

This project uses qualitative data to establish the compare the degree of civic inclusion at the federal and state level, and pairs that information with survey data to make cross- and intra-national comparisons of the degree and nature of civic engagement among members of minoritized communities.

Author

• Aubrey Westfall, Wheaton College