Why does this sound familiar: Western liberal democracy is threatened by an illiberal doctrine; some supporters of this doctrine live in western liberal democracies, but are flagrantly derisive of the liberal underpinnings that guarantee their freedom to express this contempt. Liberal society is vulnerable to such abuse, and must defend itself. Hence the need to control these elements, lest they pose a danger to society as we know it.
The doctrine I’m talking about is communism, of course. If any lesson is to be learned from the Cold War, it is that our insecurities about the strength of our liberal democracies were unfounded. It was communism which turned out to be the paper tiger—a system that offered seductive certainties but whose ugly realities precluded any real material competition with the out-spending, out-developing, out-celebrating capitalist economies that are built on liberal democratic foundations.
And now Islam is being cast in the same role as communism. Not by the likes of Le Pen, who is a simple racist, but by more sophisticated European ideologues, most notably Pim Fortuyn. Their arguments are not trivial, but they are flawed and need a reply, because unchallenged they may well turn Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations into a self-fulfilling prophecy.
During the Cold War, the McCarthyism that resulted from the deep-seated fears of communism in the US (and the strong anti-communist tilt of European Christian Democratic parties) led directly to policies that did far more harm than good to democratic institutions. The witch-hunts in the US are even now seen as one of the low points of 20th century US democratic history, next to the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. It is simply the case that destroying the freedoms that make liberal democracy worthwhile in order to save liberal democracy is a stupid and draconian measure, to be taken in desperation, if ever. The promise of liberalism cannot be broken without also breaking liberalism itself.
Before Fortuyn’s successors can justify, to my satisfaction, policies that limit the freedom of expression of Muslim Dutch citizens in the pursuit of assimilation, they will have to show the following: that Islamic culture is irredeemably illiberal, and monolithic in its anti-western stance. And that even if this were the case, that the presence of such believers on Dutch soil poses a threat to its liberal democratic foundations. They’d have to rebut the evidence that immigrants have had an overall beneficial effect on the economy, akin to their effect in the US. And finally, they’d have to clarify why successful US and British approaches to the sizable Islamic minorities in their midst are not a suitable tack for Holland to take. (This last point should be wonderful to debate, for it clearly exposes the difference between Anglo-Saxon and continental European liberalism. In the US and UK, liberalism is first and foremost an idea. In continental Europe, the liberal convictions of homogeneous societies still blanch at the prospect of multiculturalism. So to speak.)
The version of Islam that is cast by Pim Fortuyn is a caricature that does not do justice to the complexity and diversity of that religion. My experience with Islam has ranged from unbridled hospitality in Pakistan’s Hunza valley to licentious nights on the Bosporus, and I’ve witnessed expressions of deep faith in mosques from Morocco to Manhattan. It would have been interesting to sit down Bernard Lewis with Pim Fortuyn and have the Princeton Emeritus of Near Eastern Studies give Fortuyn a fuller picture. Yes, I’d imagine Lewis conceding, traditional Islamic culture does give women fewer opportunities, is frequently racist and is intolerant of gays such as Pim Fortuyn or atheists such as myself. But these are not the defining characteristics of Islam, he would point out, and are irrelevant to many Muslims. Fortuyn’s own party program lists three such “characteristics” that in fact predate Islam: Arranged marriage (uithuwelijken), revenge killing (eerwraak) and female circumcision (vrouwenbesnijdenis). Not only are revenge killing and female circumcision not condoned by any sane Muslim, but since Dutch law already prohibits murder and sexual molestation, I cannot fathom what specific extra legislation might be needed. And I don’t actually see anything wrong with arranged marriage: many millions of ethnic Indians practice it at home and abroad, and the most coercion that can be exerted within the law is alienation and expulsion from an overbearing family, which, if you are in favor of assimilation, should be a good thing. In short, Islam is not monolithic, nor irredeemably illiberal.
A more sophisticated argument on the part of Fortuyn’s party program (and I hate to have to help them along here) would have been to hammer home that Fundamentalist Islamists reject the collective maximization of the individual’s utility as the ultimate measure of a good society, in favor for a good society as defined by their god, whose will the individual must submit to. (This description also fits present-day traditional Christian and Jewish cultures, by the way). While such a way of life sounds highly illiberal, it is not incompatible with liberal democracy to the extent that this is an earnestly held belief. To the extent that it is acted upon, however, it can lead to the kind of terrorism that we all condemn, but again, all countries already outlaw murder. The whole point of liberalism is to defend freely held beliefs, both odious and supine. In this context, even fundamentalist Islam is not threatening to the “hard-fought freedoms” of the Dutch, because Dutch law already prohibits actions harmful to individuals and society. (These “hard-fought freedoms” referred to by Pim Fortuyn’s party program are of course the freedoms Americans fought hard for on their part during World War II.)
Fortuyn’s party wants to cut immigration and promote assimilation. But it is difficult to imagine what measures they would take beyond applying existing law equally to all citizens. The party proposes cutting immigration, but apparently only from non-EU countries. Would this also raise difficulties for Americans wanting to live in Holland? If it would not, then I submit the proposal is discriminatory and unworthy of The Netherlands’ long history of openness. The party platform also calls for a military and social service for all 18-year old Dutch men and women, as a means of fostering integration. Fine. But will women be allowed to wear the veil, should they choose to, when working in a soup kitchen? Or refuse to work for needle-exchange programs because they fundamentally disapprove of such tolerance of drugs? If Muslims are compelled to such actions in the name of integration, will Christian nuns and Orthodox Jewish women be compelled to remove their headgear and wigs as well? Would Dutch courts ultimately uphold the right to express one’s religious persuasions over the “right” to assimilate?
The experience of Muslims in the US and the UK shows that a fair and fearless liberal society that has no multicultural hang-ups can provide for a harmonious coexistence between Muslims and non-Muslims, one that allows assimilation but does not demand it. In Belgium, by contrast, Muslim immigrants have had to deal with mistrust and racism since the very first wave arrived in the 60s. If closed and inward-looking Muslim neighborhoods have developed, they are mimicking the cold shoulder they’ve received from the dominant Belgian majority for four decades. Subtle racism has prevented Moroccans from moving into white neighborhoods in Antwerp, for example, and the lesson does not go unheeded. In France, Le Pen’s antics arguably accelerated the radicalization of the Muslim suburban ghettoes. These personal observations of the reality of inter-ethnic relations in nort
hern Europe sugges
t to me it is not so much Mu
slim immigrants who are reluctant to assimilate; it is ethnic Europeans who are queasy at the prospect of multiculturalism, and Muslims are reacting defensively. One anecdote in favor of this thesis: Belgians will typically recite the myth that immigrants are responsible for high levels of criminality. In fact, criminality is not more rampant among immigrants—it correlates with poverty; both poor Belgians and immigrants will tend to steal when poor. Ditto when it comes to the refrain that immigrants are lazy and live off welfare: It is simply not borne out by statistics. Yet these beliefs are the conventional wisdom that propelled Fortuyn’s policy prescriptions into the mainstream.
The cynical conclusion? Continental Europeans are still willing to jettison liberal ideas to preserve a concept dearer to their hearts: cultural homogeneity.