A new doctoral dissertation is sparking a new debate on collective vs. individual rights in Sweden. The dissertation itself, Sayed "Islam och arvsrätt i det mångkulturella Sverige" [approximately "Islam and inheritance rights in multicultural Sweden", my translation], shortly argues that the cultural background of those who stand to inherit should be taken into account in the legal practices that governs the process, which in some cases could mean that a person with multiple citizenships should be able to refer to the laws of the other country. At least, that's how I've come to understand the argument, but I haven't read the thesis, so this is really my account of what others have said about it.
Anyway, the notion that some groups, notably Muslims, should be given the opportunity to inherit according to Shariah law has not been welcomed. One notable critic is Dilsa Demirbag-sten, a reputable journalist and commentator on matters of immigrant integration in the country. She writes that this is another example of how multiculturalism undermines democracy by effectively priviledging special groups with special rights based on identity politics. She considers identity politics the new political platform of the left, and as ostensibly raises group rights over individual rights, she warns that the basic liberal platform of democracy is in peril. Multiculturalism, in her reading, has been co-opted by a collectivist political elite and as a result, individuals within the minorities that are granted special group rights run the risk of oppression. In this case, she is thinking specifically about women.
Her piece reflects several conundrums that contemporary democracies face, namely the inherent difficulties in dealing with individual rights and group rights. Unfortunately, her article also reflects the conceptual confusion that prevails in this debate, in Sweden and elsewhere. This issue has also been discussed in Canada, particularly during the late 90s, and often informed by the same concern - can a multiculturalism that recognizes group rights be reconciled with the principle that all individuals are equal?
Will Kymlicka provides an interesting answer and separates group rights that are internally restrictive (and thus limits the power of individuals within the group) from group rights that provide external protection (from majority discrimination). The latter, he argues, is clearly possible to adopt within a liberal framework, while the former is not. I believe that the public debate on these issues would benefit greatly from this kind of clarification, both in Sweden and elsewhere. Demirbag-sten's piece, by comparison, comes across as rather sweeping, precisely because it lacks precision in terms of the plurality of forms that group rights can take.
More seriously, however, Demirbag-sten’s piece comes across as a frontal assault on multiculturalism as a political framework, carelessly labeling as some form of leftist collectivist project. The problem with this is that most contemporary democracies are poly-ethnic and so needs to find some way to negotiate between majority and minorities. However, in most cases where multiculturalism has been derided as a detrimental elitist project (along the same line of reason as Demirbag-sten engages in), the result has been a backlash of assimilationist policies, as have been seen in the Netherlands, France and Denmark. I doubt that this is where the author wants to go with her piece, but it is, in this respect, dangerous grounds she treads. Multiculturalism is broader than the vision of a single political clique, but if the term itself becomes too negatively loaded, there is a real risk that the reality of a poly-ethnic society itself will come under attack, and that would be a tragedy. Instead, it would be wiser, I think, to discuss how the multicultural society should manifest, and how the dialogue between majority and minorities should be conducted to be as inclusive and respectful as possible. That would, ultimately, be more constructive for the public debate.
