The question of the integration policy is here particularly interesting: Australia, where this paper was presented ( 18-20 February 2003, University of Sydney), has had a specific immigration and integration policyand Charles Westin, a researcher at the Stockholm University,author of this document, had to adapt to this specific public, which is one of the interests of this particularly thorough analysis.
Abstract:
I will address the issue of the policies Sweden has adopted to integrate its
migrant population, and on the other hand its stand in relation to the indigenous Saami
population. While Sweden has developed liberal policies of multiculturalism to incorporate its migrants (social, educational and economic equality, support for cultural maintenance etc., voting rights in local and county elections for permanently residing non-Swedish nationals, liberal naturalisation conditions), it has traditionally been unwilling to recognise or accept Saami claims to special treatment in questions where land rights are concerned. A multicultural policy that does not consider the position of traditional ethnic and ethno-territorial minorities will not appear to have credibility. These two different policy approaches cannot be understood without a closer look at the formation of the Swedish nation state. Issues that I want to address are about bringing together two different discourses. What happens when multiculturalism is imported into the older structure of the nation state? A lot has been written about multiculturalism and probably even more on the nation state. However, much of the work on multiculturalism is inspired by experiences in countries based on immigration (Australia, Canada, the United States). These experiences do not necessarily apply in the older European nation state context. On the other hand, most work on nation state formation departs from European experiences, but rarely addresses the issues of incorporating people of immigrant origin. Multiculturalism, or diversity, is not immediately compatible with traditional conceptions of the nation state. Values that relate to national identity, common history and common destiny, majority language and national/ethnic stereotypes are used, or may be used to create a sense of national/ethnic unity by excluding the ‚Other’. How is social cohesion achieved in a society moving towards diversity? How should the national story be rethought to include migrants as well as indigenous minorities? Can Human Rights serve as a value base in an ethnically diverse Swedish society? I will finally address some questions relating to citizenship and identity.
The Swedish Model
Over a period of thirty years Sweden has developed a set of policies aimed to incorporate international migrants into Swedish society. Sweden has a number of instruments at its disposal that on the whole have proved to be operational. Nevertheless, when we step back and look at the immigration/integration policy context as a whole, it is quite apparent that current policies are in a state of muddle and even contradiction. In this paper I will outline the general context for policies. There is a need to sort out some of the confusion.
Ever since a commission in the late 1960s was appointed to draw up policies for the field of immigration, the authorities have been concerned about potential conflict. For many years now continued large-scale immigration has been regarded as fuel for social (or ethnic) conflict. Militant racist and neo-Nazi groups that for instance speak in terms of “the coming race war” confirm these fears. More importantly, even large sectors of the population that would never dream of siding with Nazi thugs are highly critical of immigration, thus putting the authorities on the defensive. The implicit but principal aim of policies in this field, it seems, has become to avoid conflict. Thus, since the early 1970s immigration policy is aimed to reduce immigration to a minimum.
The integration policy on the other hand is aimed to incorporate migrants into mainstream society. Making migrants less visible is then a complementary strategy to steer clear of manifest conflict. There is a problem though: Officially assimilation was abandoned as a policy goal in the mid-1970s and a form of multiculturalism through integration was officially accepted. Different words appearing in this discourse over the years—integration, pluralism, multiculturalism and diversity—all seem to stand for accepting (certain) differences but “doing things in the Swedish way”. Unofficially assimilation is still seen as the best solution. Integration “the Swedish way” basically boils down to a form of subtle assimilation. What the authorities ultimately aim at is control of societal development. Reforms that are introduced, no matter in what social domain, imply and rely on some form of bureaucratic societal control mechanisms. Social engineering has served as the means to achieve ends.
Today the codeword is diversity. Key issues are: How much diversity can be accepted without overt expressions of social conflict? How much diversity can be accepted without loss of control over social developments? Public acceptance for diversity needs to be achieved, but social engineering is not well adapted to achieve this aim. One might put it that the concession that the authorities are willing to make to an ethnocentric public opinion in order to achieve an acceptance for diversity is to keep future immigration at a minimum. Diversity, however, is linked with immigration. If immigration is stopped, true diversity will come to an end. We need to realize that the aims are contradictory.
A concrete proposal addressed to Swedish policy makers is to reassess immigration policy. The official view of not accepting labour migrants from non-EU/EEA countries, and only accepting refugees who unquestionably meet the criteria of the Geneva Convention is hypocrisy. Everyone knows that international migrants find their way to Western countries, Sweden being no exception. It is all part of globalisation and transnational networks. Instead of being on the defensive, and thus appeasing the ethnocentric opinion, the authorities need to be on the offensive. Opening up for what can be agreed on as a reasonable immigration program is support for diversity. Diversity, then, is not a means to handle what is perceived as “problematic immigration”. Rather, immigration needs to be seen as a positive means to achieve the goal of diversity.
Opening up for a liberal refugee policy is in effect to support human rights values. All Western countries have aging populations. If welfare systems are to be maintained immigration of manpower will soon become an economic demographic necessity. Since all EU member states are facing the same problem, the freedom of movement within Schengen is not the long-term solution to the coming need for manpower.
[...]
No comments yet
Comments feed for this article