The refusal of the theory of multiculturalism, which is no news and has become a European tendency, has been introduced not so long ago by both France’s Sarkozy, Germany’s Merkel and England’s Cameron, when in 2010-2011 they saw a reason to say directly and without any diplomatic formality that the ideology of multiculturalism in fact had failed. Certainly the harshest formulation of this idea was that of Claude Gean, the incumbent interior minister of France, who said that it is not all civilizations that are worth each other. He was criticized for this announcement; he was accused in speaking things that were characteristic to the Nazis – the European ideology that gave birth to concentration camps. However, the minister of interior said that he had not meant Muslim citizens who had specific culture and accepted the republican system of values.
The accusations against those who are giving new formulations to the notion of superiority and inferiority of civilizations in fact are a result of ongoing discussions and their continuation. The reason goes back to history. Let’s say Germany that eventually fully lost the WWII had to recover, thus the country needed cheap labor because the country was ruined. The biggest inflow of labor was from Turkey and the expectations of Germany that they would return to their countries or integrate with the German society did not come true. Turks stayed in that country and succeeded but did not integrate as the Germans had been expecting from them. Nowadays there are Turkish community clubs in German cities, the main occupation of which is playing backgammon. Even in Germany Erdogan tells the Turks that their first language is Turkish.
France’s Sarkozy had to deal with this problem even more than directly when he still was the minister of internal affairs. At that time a lot of cars were burnt and this street “disorder” lasted almost twenty days. The European media, including the French media, used mild words about the people that had burnt cars and reported that those were immigrants, who did not live in good conditions in France. At that time they were trying not to use any expressions that would involve civilizations.
The British experience is proven to be the best, and the government’s ordered surveyor reported that 3/4 of the Muslims living in their country considered themselves close and peer not with the citizens of the Great Britain that live with them in the same legal, economic, political and social environment but the Muslims of other countries that share routine and religious values with them.
This means that it was not by chance that in the context of historical developments similar announcements were made by the heads of the European three leading countries. It would be naïve to think that the observed failures of multiculturalism would stay as facts and will not become a tendency. The tendency already is showing the set of the tools, including the Armenian issue that started to be more actual since the second half of the 20th century. The issue is being brought back to the long-term discussions agenda of the European policy and from time to time this issue will be raised with different formulations, at different levels during various occasions. It will be a strategic choice where and in which phase of political processes this issue should be used (before elections, for campaign pressure or in other situations). As for the bill on criminalizing the refusal of the fact of the Armenian genocide adopted by France, certainly it will have continuation in the future as well, and maybe in different contexts.
This tendency that comes up more clearly in the modern European policy is both a challenge and opportunity for Armenians. The “post-modern” requires a certain level of preparedness for the near future, and this preparedness should be first of all at the intellectual level.
On the edge of the 19th and 20th centuries the material and intellectual potential of the Armenians was not enough to resist the dangers stemming out of the actualization of the Armenian issue. In the 21st century these dangers have not been eliminated; they simply transformed and appear differently in civilizations, politics, information, cultural, economic and military sectors.
It will be exaggerated to say that the new challenges are more conscious and observed than the ones 100 years ago. It will be wrong to say that the material and intellectual potential is not enough now either. We have to agree with the fact that now the Armenians have statehood; hence they are not a public that is subject to the direction of collapsing empire, so a state, in difference with a public, must have political planning, strategy and people who are capable to implement that strategy with quality. This cannot come true with the resources of the sycophants that have appeared in the team of the government and don’t do anything else but flattering with the authorities. The country should be represented in the upcoming game with a team of people that are educated and know the European environment.
The upcoming elections are an opportunity, this time don’t do the same thing as always.
Armen Zakaryan