How to be tolerant, in the right way

How to be tolerant, in the right way

Roy Voragen, Bandung

Discussions on the Islamic headscarf (hijab) keep on returning
in the headlines for the past two decades. These discussions are
marked by a high density of trenches -- the different parties
accuse each other of not being tolerant, of being against
religion (thus of being too secular), of being too religious
(thus of being a fundamentalist), of occupying public space. Let
us reconsider these terms to try to unravel the Gordian knots --
or at least to identify the Gordian knots.

In Europe live many Muslims, many of them of Moroccan and
Turkish ancestry. During the economic booms after World War II
many Moroccans and Turks came to work and no one really gave it a
thought if they would stay and whether they would stay for how
long under what conditions. The majority of those so called
temporary workers stayed and settled down. Either they started
families or invited their families over to (fortress) Europe.
Anyway, they became for the better or worse Europeans, even
though many kept a double nationality.

Europeans should accept all those came on the high tide of
economy and staid to become Europeans. All those Moroccans, Turks
and their offspring should no longer be regarded as mere
immigrants. They are Europeans and have the nationality of a
European Union member state. These Europeans should not be
regarded as intruders, as new Moors or Ottomans. They are
European citizens and rights and duties that come with
citizenship are not limited to participating in elections.

It is very problematic that throughout the European Union the
immigrants and their offspring are stuck in the lower social and
economic strata of their society. They are not in this position
because they pray towards Mecca or because they left their heart
in Morocco or Turkey, even though the language is an important
barrier and if they want to have two nationalities they should be
bi-lingual. Democracy is supposed to work in a direction to
integrate all, so every citizen can participate and that is why
public space is of importance.

Do immigrants and their offspring not want to integrate within
the existing society? Or do existing European societies not want
to integrate these immigrants and their offspring? The latter
proposition states that religion is used as a political tool to
destabilize existing societies. The former suggest that (old)
Europeans are hostile towards their religion and treat them
(therefore) unjustly.

European states are nation-states and have difficulties to
absorb new people with different cultural identities then what is
generally seen as the national identity (this can be seen in the
uprising of far right wing parties with populist or even racist
leaders throughout Europe). Even though a national identity is
not a consistent unity and is gradually changing, it is anyway
with significant socio-political consequences.

The secular state is generally seen as one of those pillars of
the European nation-states after too many religious wars were
fought on European soil.

The secular state does not mean that the secular state
promotes secularization -- i.e. the defeat of religious
institutions -- or atheism. The secular state means that the
state is not to force a certain religion on its citizens, neither
is the state allowed to force its citizens to belive in certain
ways and not in other ways. The secular state leaves religion to
its citizens, without making the separation between politics and
religion an absolute one (e.g. Christian Democratic parties use
religious arguments in ethical discussions).

The secular state does not mean that public space is without
religion. But because religion and other belief systems are up to
citizens we are in the need of tolerance. Tolerance has to mean
two things to make it workable. First of all we need to tolerate
each others' differences; tolerance does not mean that we have to
see the value of every value (the standpoint of some proponents
of postmodernism). But second, we should not absolute our own
good. Without the second we will be trapped in our own good and
tolerance will be a synonym for indifference and will overstate
differences.

Tolerance should neither be a power tool: The majority
tolerates the minority as long as they abide the law, norms and
values of the ruling majority. Nor should tolerance permit
everything. A dialog can point out what tolerance means, and what
is and what is not permissible.

A dialog between citizens requires irony so one does not hide
behind the walls of one's particular values and norms. In the
debates on Islam in general and on the headscarf in particular we
can see a total lack of irony with all parties. This lack of
irony reflects and generates standpoints of us and them, Muslim
Europeans and other Europeans are more and more segregated from
each other.

And it does not help when the debate is put in terms of human
rights violations. No one is being killed or tortured. We are not
witnessing cruelty. We are talking about freedom of expression by
individual citizens. But this freedom -- as with any freedom --
is not an absolute one, it depends where and with who on what one
can express. And to make one's identity absolute is to overstate
it.

Nor does it help to enforce a culture on people in the name of
mere neutrality. Civilization means that citizens interact in a
civil -- i.e. peaceful way -- way. But civilization also means
the dominant culture of a certain time and place. European
countries are no multicultural countries. Europeans have to
accept the immigrants and their offspring, and immigrants and
their offspring should accept that they are (becoming) Europeans.

Instead of exchanging standpoints a consensus could be tried.
A consensus could take many forms. Most likely different
consensuses will be found in different political cultures, thus
probably the different European Union member states will have to
try different consensuses.

The writer is political philosopher, currently working as a
guest lecturer at the Faculty of Social and Political Sciences
(FISIP), Universitas Padjadjaran in Bandung. He can be reached at
royvoragen@hotmail.com