Revisiting separate but equal and fair principles

Ralf Dahrendorf, Former Rector, London School of Economics, Project Syndicate

Surely not a wall? An Israeli friend, a "Peace Now" activist, replied to my question with his own: "Do you realize that not one suicide bomber entered Israel from the Gaza Strip?" Why not? "Because there is a fence." If an electric fence was built around the West Bank territory, he continued, two problems could be solved at once. Palestinians would be allowed into Israel only at a small number of checkpoints, and the settlers would soon find their own position untenable and return to Israel.

Things, of course, are not that simple. Such a fence would probably include settlements close to, but inside the 1967 line. The return of the settlers would be a difficult process both in practical terms and because of Israeli public opinion. Then there are the questions of the Israeli Arabs and of Jerusalem (for is it, as Berlin once was, to be sliced in two by a wall?). Having said that, it is striking that a man of liberal values such as my "Peace Now" friend should advocate the physical separation of groups as the road -- perhaps the only road -- to peace.

The notion that groups should have equal rights but remain separate was once the ultimate concession of traditionalists in the old segregated American South. A form of apartheid without oppression was as far as they were prepared to go.

Liberal forces, however, pushed for a different solution. They wanted a society in which races and ethnic groups and religious denominations mixed freely. When they lived apart in their own "ghettos", their children were taken by bus to schools of the other groups so that what is nowadays called multi-culturalism could be practiced. Ultimately, the liberal dream saw a blurring of lines of difference not only by common living spaces but also by intermarriage.

It is, no doubt, the ultimate dream of a fully developed citizenship that a common floor of rights -- including a guaranteed economic status -- will enable different people to live together in harmony. But today we know that this is only a dream.

It may merely appear to become real where people of different social classes live together, but this is so because the lines of class themselves have become blurred. It does not make a lot of difference whether my neighbor makes, sells, repairs or uses computers. However, where differences cannot easily be blurred -- those of religion, ethnic and cultural origin, color -- common citizenship has not achieved the unity of diversity so many have dreamed about.

In fact wherever different groups have had to share a space, they have either fought each other or drawn a line to stay separate. Sometimes these lines are highly visible. They are in fact borders, as they are drawn most dramatically between the parts of what used to be Yugoslavia. Usually the drama imposed a high human cost. "Ethnic cleansing" meant in most cases persecution and killing. Where international peacekeepers stepped in they soon abandoned all hope of making Muslims and Christians, Croats and Serbs live as neighbors again even among those who had been peaceful neighbors in the past.

Elsewhere, even in the most civilized countries, the same process may not be as visible but is equally prevalent. The Turks of Berlin, the Bangladeshis of Bradford, the North Africans of the suburbs of Paris have not blended into the surrounding societies. In fact, sometimes the second generation cultivates its difference from the mainstream culture more aggressively than the original immigrants.

Why? Why do equal citizenship rights not achieve their purpose? In many cases, people may not have tried hard enough. After all, so far as Jews are concerned, Israel has done a remarkable job of integrating diversity. The United States may be less of a melting pot today than it was a century ago, but even so it sets a good example.

Perhaps it is the lack of integrative strength in other societies which makes people feel that the only place where they really belong is among their own people. Globalization may have something to do with it, as well as the disintegration that accompanies modernity.

For those who have not abandoned hope for the eventual victory of enlightened values but who nonetheless see things as they are in the real world, a version of "separate but equal" may provide at least an interim answer. So far as equality is concerned, the guarantee of full citizenship rights for all represents a major task. Much remains to be done to achieve it.

So far as separateness is concerned, it should not be explicitly promoted unless a fence seems to be the only hope of peace. It should, however, be allowed, while at the same time common spaces should be both available and safe for all. London comes to mind when thinking of an example of relative success in the face of extraordinary diversity. In this great metropolis, many people live among mostly their own but share the pleasures as well as the miseries of public spaces. Their lives are intertwined and yet diverse.