State

multiculturalism has failed, says David Cameron.1

This and similar headlines appeared shortly after the Prime Minister David
Cameron delivered his speech at the Security Conference in Munich on February
5th 2011. This speech represented yet another round of the seemingly never-
ending and often heated debate in the political and academic spheres about the
character of British identity. One of the subjects reoccurring during these
debates has been the notion of the need to formulate a modern strong national
identity, dubbed by many simply as Britishness.2 However, notwithstanding the
considerable effort to define this term, it remains to be rather ambiguous in its
character and controversial in its usage.

In the already mentioned speech, the Prime Minister outlined implicitly the
agenda of the current government in regards to Britishness. There is a specific
part of his speech that stands out and therefore needs to be analysed. In this
part, David Cameron constructed a link between the threat of domestic terrorism
in the United Kingdom and the absence of loyalty of some groups of citizens
(read Muslims) to the idea of Britishness. According to Mr Cameron, these
groups find it hard to identify with Britainbecause we have allowed the
weakening of our collective identity.3 It is precisely this wording that ignited the
interest of the author of this essay to examine and critique the concept of
Britishness as presented by the Prime Minister.

1 BBC, State multiculturalism has failed, says David Cameron, BBC News Politics, February 5,

2011, accessed December 3 ,2012, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12371994.

2 The author will use this term in the sense of an attempt to formulate national identity that
would encompass what does it mean to be British
3 David Cameron, Radicalisation and Islamist extremism (paper presented at the security
conference in Munich, Germany, February 5, 2011).


Turning now to the main argument itself, this essay proposes that Britishness is
not something that should or even could be defined by the government. The
reasons are threefold. First, the British identity is not being under attack, hence
the claimed urgency to strengthen it and thus combat its weaking is not based
on facts but rather on a mere political calculus. Second, it is questionable
whether government has a right to operate in such private realm of its citizens as
is their identity. Finally, the inevitability of creating exclusive rather than
inclusive identity rules out any top-down processes from being used to promote
national identity in socially cohesive way. After analysing all three main points of
this essays critique, the author will attempt to formulate his perception of
Britishness that is to be celebrated as an achievement of the British society
rather than being shunned as a yet another empty political construct. However,
before the main analysis, it is vital to introduce the circumstances that ignited
fierce discussion about the issue of identities in Britain

The effort on the side of political elites to define and introduce viable version of
Britishness is not a new phenomenon and has been vividly present in the
political sphere since the electoral victory of the New Labour in 1997. For the
Labour government, the concept of One Nation represented an effort to identify
one single inclusive, attractive and easy to identified with identity.4 However, the
true urgency in the quest for a common identity came only after the tragic events
of 9/11 and particularly after the London bombings. Suddenly the issue of

4 Peter Ratcliffe, Race, Ethnicity and Difference: Imagining the Inclusive society (Berkshire: Open

University Press, 2004), 8.

multiculturalism and national identity acquired a new dimension, as it was

narrowed down to the point when loyalty of British Muslims to their state was
being questioned. As Abbas pointed out, in the post-September 11 climate,
British Muslims are at the centre of questions in relation to what it means to be
British or English.5 Thus, it can be suggested that the question what does it
mean to be British or English was transformed overnight to the question what
does it mean to be a British Muslim. Presumably, it has been the
abovementioned circumstances that inspired David Cameron to claim a failure of
multiculturalism, particularly in relation to the Muslim communities in Britain,
and at the same time to suggest that, we must buildstronger identities at
home. Frankly, we need a lot less of passive toleranceand a much more active,
muscular liberalism.6

The aim of the followin section is to show why David Cameron might not only be
wrong in his assessment that time has come when stronger identities should be
built, but also why his proposed top-down solution in form of muscular
liberalism might do more harm than good.

The urgency by which David Cameron calls for reinventing Britishness as one
strong national identity does not seem to be based on rational arguments. First,
it is true that Muslims in Britain have been in the epicentre of public attention,
not least because of the immensity by which the British public was affected by
the London bombings and the conclusions of the subsequent investigation. Yet,

5 Tahir Abbas, Recent Developments to British Multicultural Theory, Policy, and Practice: The

case of British Muslims, Citizenship Studies 9 (2005): 161.

6 Cameron, Radicalisation and Islamist extremism.

one has to consider the scale of the pertinent issue. There are around 1.6 million7
Muslims living in Britain, yet the number involved in terrorist-related activities
does not exceed 1% of all British-born Muslims. Secondly, even the assumed low
level of identification of the British-born Muslims with their country is
challenged in various reports and studies conducted in Britain in the last decade.
For instance, the English and Wales 2007 Citizenship Survey shows that
members of Pakistani and Bangladeshi ethnicity (two major ethnicities to which
majority of British-born Muslims belong) share strong sense of belonging to
Britain, ironically even higher than White British.8 In another study specifically
aimed at recognising dominant trends among Muslim communities, the
researchers could not come with a ultimate verdict about the degree to which
British-born Muslims identify themselves with Britishness, hence they concluded
that many Muslims, feel comfortable with being both British and Muslim and do
not feel there is a conflict between the two.9 Although one might suggest that
one or two studies will never be able to represent the sentiment of the whole
population, these reports are still important evidence that any notion of
Britishness being threatened might not be based on sober reading of the reality
on streets of Britain.

However, even without the sense of urgency, one might still argue that a
government initiative aimed at formulation of national identity is in long term a
beneficial effort. Yet again, this might not be entirely true. There are at least two

7 Munira Mirza, Abi Senthilkumaran and Zein Jafar, Living apart together: British Muslims and the

paradox of multiculturalism (London: Policy Exchange, 2007), 100.

8 National Statistics, Citizenship Survey April-December 2007, England&Wales (The national
archives: Statistical release 3, April 2008), 31 (Table 13.).
9 Mirza, Living apart together, 39.

main deficiencies in the concept that the government should or is even capable
of building a stronger identity.

First, society is a dynamic entity where conditions are changing rapidly, yet
cannot be forced to change that easily. In other words, most processes that are
observed in society have their inner mechanism, independent from the direct
control of people let alone governments. The way in which different groups of
the society perceive and define their identity is not an exception in this regard.
To put simply, it is hardly conceivable that just because the government
formulates its version of Britishness, people in Britain will feel sudden and
strong attachment to it. Parekh in this regard emphasised that, identification
with the country is a highly complex processand it develops at its own pace.10
This clearly indicates that the muscularity of the effort to strengthen Britishness
as proposed by the Prime Minister would neither speed up nor guarantee the
acceptance of his version of Britishness.

Second, at this point, the key issues are the words his version. There is an
assumption shared by many proponents of top-down initiatives that in order to
strengthen the nations identity, this identity has to be clearly defined. The Prime
Minister sent very clear message in this regard when he stated that, to belong
here is to believe in these things.11 The issue her is not so much what are the
things, but rather the idea that somebody else, let alone government, can tell

10 Bhikhu Parekh, Being British, in Britishness: Perspectives on the British question, ed. Andrew

Gamble and Tony Wright (Chicester: Wiley-Blackwell in association with The political quarterly,
2009), 33.
11 Cameron, Radicalisation and Islamist extremism

another person or group of people what they have to agree with and how they
should feel about certain issues just for them to belong. The irony of such
approach of the government to something so private as ones identity is its clear
contradiction with exactly those things that one should believe, namely
freedom of speech, freedom of worship, democracy.12 According to Jopke, it is a
necessity that a liberal state allows its citizen to follow their private demons as
they see fit, within the limits prescribed by maintaining the rules of liberal
democracy themselves. 13 Thus, by implying that there is only one single
Britishness which is to be propagated whilst being defined in rather exclusive
manner, David Cameron negates to some extent his call for being hard-nosed
aboutdefence of our liberty,14 since any liberal democracy should definitely
allow and even facilitate the opportunity of its citizens to have multiple identities
and preserve their culture. Furthermore, Camerons rhetoric is in stark contrast
with a famous speech given in 1966 by Roy Jenkins, then home secretary, who
emphasised that in Britain, there is no need for a melting pot, which will turn
everybody out in a common mould[into] someones misplaced vision of the
stereotyped Englishman.

It is becoming apparent that the final issue in the concept of top-down imposed
Britishness is its inevitable exclusivity, which consequently undermines the
whole concept of formulating the national identity that nation, not just part of
the nation, can identify itself with. The reason why such exclusivity is inevitable

12 Ibid.
13 Christian Joppke, and Steven Lukes, Introduction: Multicultural questions, in Multicultural

questions, edited by Christian Joppke and Steven Lukes,(Oxford : Oxford University Press, 1999)
1.
14 Ibid.

stems from the fact that Britain, as described by probably the most important
report on the state of multi-ethnicity in the recent years, is a community of
communities.15 Thus, any effort to narrow down the definition what does it
mean to be British runs a risk of excluding those who simply thinks or lives
differently than what is perceived to be the mainstream of the society. In other
words, there are hardly encompassing yet at the same time specific enough
categories that would cater for all the different reasons why someone might feel
like British. Hence, the only way to define Britishness whilst preserving its
unique character is to admit that to feel like British is the only necessary factor
by which ones loyalty to the country can be measured. It is then the very
capaciousness of Britishness16 that enables multiple identities and loyalties to
flourish within it. 17 At the same time, omitting ethnically, politically or
religiously based criteria in determining ones Britishness is in line with the
recommendations to de-nationalise and de-ethnicize 18 the discourse about
citizenships. Even though Willets perceives Britishness as a primarily political
identity, he too acknowledges its marvelous openness, as there is no ethnic
element to it for example.19

Bhikhu Parekh, The Future Of Multi-Ethnic Britain: The Parekh Report (London: The
Commission on The Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain,2000), 56.
16 Andrew Gamble and Tony Wright, Introduction: The Britishness Question, in Britishness:
Perspectives on the British question, ed. Andrew Gamble and Tony Wright (Chicester: Wiley-
Blackwell in association with The political quarterly, 2009), 7.
17 Ibid.
18 Ali Rattansi, Multiculturalism: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2011), 123.
15

19 David Willets, England and Britain, Europe and The Anglosphere, in Britishness: Perspectives

on the British question, ed. Andrew Gamble and Tony Wright (Chicester: Wiley-Blackwell in
association with The political quarterly, 2009), 56.

Having considered the aforementioned, we are now in a position to suggest that

the concept of Britishness is best understood as a very inclusive, open and
flexible identity that is being continuously created, transformed and adjusted, as
its main goal is to not delimit between us and them but rather offer enough
space for we. Hence, the idea of a strong national identity that has to be
formulated and imposed on the society from the top can be refuted as not
reflecting the reality of the British society and being rather just a peculiarly
abstract exercise.20

This essay intended to asses the perception of Britishness as being formulated
and imposed by the political elites on the society. First, it presented reasons that
spurred the recent round of debate regarding identities and loyalty to the state.
Second, it highlighted the absence of any real threat to British identity, or at least
absence of threat of such severity that would correspond with the urgency of the
calls for a new strong national identity. It was demonstrated how artificial and
eventual harmful is to try to impose confined structures on a dynamic society,
particularly in the case of such cosmopolitan society as the one in Britain.
Similarly, evidences were provided that underlined that only natural processes
could bring about substantial changes in the way people perceive their identity.
Finally, the necessity for maintaining very inclusive character of Britishness was
emphasised. By means of these three arguments, the author of the study was
able to refute the viability of politically motivated formulation of British identity.
Indeed, the author strongly believes that only if the concept of Britishness is left

20 Robert Hazel, Britishness and the Future of the Union, in Britishness: Perspectives on the

British question, ed. Andrew Gamble and Tony Wright (Chicester: Wiley-Blackwell in association
with The political quarterly, 2009), 105.

to be negotiated by the society itself, Britain can preserve what Winston

Churchill perceived to be the certain standard of tolerances and decencies
which are treasured by us and envied or admired by others. Such standard will
hopefully remain to be the essence of Britishness for the many generations to
come.

Bibliography

Abbas, Tahir. Recent Developments to British Multicultural Theory, Policy, and
Practice: The case of British Muslims. Citizenship Studies 9 (2005): 153-166.

BBC. State multiculturalism has failed, says David Cameron. BBC News Politics,
February
5,
2011,
accessed
December
3
,2012,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12371994.

Cameron, David. Radicalisation and Islamist extremism. Paper presented at the
security conference in Munich, Germany, February 5, 2011.

Gamble, Andrew, and Wright, Tony. Introduction: The Britishness Question. In
Britishness: Perspectives on the British question, edited by Andrew Gamble and
Tony Wright, 1-9. Chicester: Wiley-Blackwell in association with The political
quarterly, 2009.

Hazel, Robert. Britishness and the Future of the Union. In Britishness:
Perspectives on the British question, edited by Andrew Gamble and Tony
Wright, 101-111. Chicester: Wiley-Blackwell in association with The political
quarterly, 2009.

Joppke, Christian, and Lukes, Steven. Introduction: Multicultural questions, in
Multicultural questions, edited by Christian Joppke and Steven Lukes, 1-24.
Oxford : Oxford University Press, 1999.

Mirza, Munira, Senthilkumaran, Abi, and Jafar, Zein. Living apart together:
British Muslims and the paradox of multiculturalism. London: Policy Exchange,
2007.

National Statistics. Citizenship Survey April-December 2007, England&Wales. The
national archives: Statistical release 3, April 2008.

Parekh, Bhikhu. The Future Of Multi-Ethnic Britain: The Parekh Report. London:
The Commission on The Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain, 2000.

Parekh, Bhikhu. Being British. In Britishness: Perspectives on the British
question, edited by Andrew Gamble and Tony Wright, 32-40. Chicester: Wiley-
Blackwell in association with The political quarterly, 2009.

10

Ratcliffe, Peter. Race, Ethnicity and Difference: Imagining the Inclusive society.
Berkshire: Open University Press, 2004.

Rattansi, Ali. Multiculturalism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2011.

Willets, David. England and Britain, Europe and The Anglosphere. In
Britishness: Perspectives on the British question, edited by Andrew Gamble and
Tony Wright, 54-61. Chicester: Wiley-Blackwell in association with The
political quarterly, 2009.

11