Search results

AbstractIn the modern era, the grand forces of modernism, liberalism and nationalism have opposed and minimized societal diversity in Western states. The Civil Rights Movement in the USA and the flow of millions of unassimilable immigrants, mostly Muslims, to Europe opened Western societies to cultural diversity. But liberal multiculturalism in the West consists mainly of endorsement of subcultures, non‐discrimination and inclusion. It falls short of instituting consociational components like cultural autonomy and power‐sharing. Fear and unease in the West increasingly give priority to majority over minority rights. While all Western democracies object to societal diversity, they differ in the way they handle it: liberal democracies deny it, consociational democracies institutionalize it and ethnic democracies partially allow and partially subordinate it. These three different strategies are evident in the way representative cases of Western democracies, namely the USA, Switzerland and Estonia, respectively, cope with societal diversity.

Smooha argues that Joppke's thesis in his paper on comparative citizenship in Europe—there is no restrictive turn in citizenship and immigration laws and practices in Europe—is questionable. This is true not only for the pre-enlargement 15 EU countries during the years 1980-2006 under Joppke's study, but also for the post-enlargement 27 EU countries. When the time range is broadened to the post-1945 period, it is clear that the historical trend of liberalization has come to an end in Europe and this is in spite of Europe's dire need of immigrants and the great desire of non-Europeans to immigrate to Europe. Europe is particularly fearful of Moslems, Arab Moslems, and Black Africans.Nevertheless, the comparison between Israel and the EU countries can put the discussion on Europe in perspective. Israel can be representative of non-European countries that claim to be Western or European countries that are latecomers to the West. When these countries are compared to the 15 EU countries, as described and analyzed by Joppke, it is evident that the EU core is liberal and Israel and non-core European countries are not liberal in their laws and practices. EU laws on immigration and naturalization are motivated only partially by ethnicity while those of other countries are more shaped by ethnic considerations and those of Israel are mainly determined by ethnicity and ethnicity-based fear.According to Smooha the EU might move in Israel's highly restrictive direction when it feels that its Western civilization, national cultures, and internal security are more significantly and increasingly threatened by non-European immigrants and their descendants.

The Western democratic nation–state is a model state in the world state system. It appears in two variants: individual–liberal and republican–liberal. Both are grounded on individual rights only. In the West there are also several cases of consociational democracy in which separate national communities and their collective rights are recognised. Since World War II the liberal nation–state has been under global and internal pressures to change. It has kept its basic character but partially decoupled nation and state and recognised group differences. Along with individual–liberal democracy, republican–liberal democracy and consociational democracy, multicultural democracy and ethnic democracy are taking shape as alternative types of democracy. This fivefold typology can contribute to the fields of comparative politics and comparative ethnicity. It serves as a broad framework for the analysis of five states in this special issue: Northern Ireland, Estonia, Israel, Poland and Turkey.

The liberal democratic nation–state is on the decline in the West as a result of globalisation, regionalisation, universalisation of minority rights, multiculturalism and the rise of ethno–nationalism. While Western countries are decoupling the nation–state and shifting toward multicultural civic democracy, other countries are consolidating an alternative non–civic form of a democratic state that is identified with and subservient to a single ethnic nation. This model, 'ethnic democracy', is presented; its defining features, the circumstances leading to it and the conditions for its stability are elaborated upon; and it is applied to Israel. Contrary to its self–image and international reputation as a Western liberal democracy, Israel is an ethnic democracy in which the Jews appropriate the state and make it a tool for advancing their national security, demography, public space, culture and interests. At the same time, Israel is a democracy that extends various kinds of rights to 1 million Palestinian Arab citizens (16 per cent of the population) who are perceived as a threat. The criticisms against the general model and its applicability to Israel are discussed. The model has already been applied to other countries, but more applications are needed in order to develop it further.