Democracy and Diversity

Excellencies, friends

Welcome to Oslo and to this IDEA round table on Democracy and Diversity. And particular thanks to IDEA for initiating this event.

Winston Churchill once remarked: “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried.” I assume this is why you are here. Democracy is a challenging and sometimes complex way to run a society, and yet we know of no other viable alternatives. We have to make it work!

The Latin phrase cuius regio, eius religio (kujos régio, ejos relígio), which can be translated as: “whose rule, his religion” was a key concept in the Peace of Augsburg signed in 1555. In other words, the religion of the king or ruler must be the religion of the people. The territorial princes and free cities gained a monopoly on local worship; they had the freedom to develop their culture and identity as a norm for their regions.

For us this is an illustration of how the challenges of pluralism were resolved in Europe at the time: each territory should have its own cultural expression. Coexistence and cooperation were not options. A common identity was to be based on equality, which was interpreted as conformity. This is our Norwegian and European heritage: national identities based on the ideal of homogeneity and the concept of self-legitimising borders.

However, even without crossing the borders of Norway, we to realize that such one-dimensional national identities always were lies. The existence of the Sámi people in this country testifies to the shortcomings of such a notion. We have not had a self-understanding based on complementary identities and enriching differences, and yet this is the reality our democracies are faced with now  – more than ever.

Most Norwegians are Evangelical Lutherans. Yet the Muslim population in our country is growing, counting 130 000 in 2007. We also have 46 000 Catholics – this group too is growing. Norway was traditionally the territory of Lutherans, but now it is also home to Catholics and Pentecostals, as well as Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, atheists, Muslims, Baha’is, Mormons and all the others who lives here.
There are 415 000 immigrants in Norway, accounting for 8.9% of the total Norwegian population; 341 800 of them were born abroad. Today there are immigrants in every Norwegian county, although most live in the cities. Some 24% of the inhabitants of Oslo are immigrants.

What does this mean for our self-understanding? Who are we, the demos – the common people – of our democracy? And who are the people set to govern us? I believe that these are central questions in any debate on democracy and diversity.

One thing is certain. It is time to start thinking differently about ourselves. In the words of John F. Kennedy: “If we cannot end now our differences [and I will add: we cannot], at least we can help make the world safe for diversity.”
But this is no easy task. Professor Robert Putnam published a study last year showing that the more diverse a community is, the less likely its inhabitants are to trust one anyone – from their next-door neighbour to the mayor. The core message of his research is that, “in the presence of diversity, we hunker down. We act like turtles. The effect of diversity is worse than had been imagined. And it’s not just that we don’t trust people who are not like us. In diverse communities, we don’t trust people who do look like us.” Professor Putnam found that trust was lowest in Los Angeles, “the most diverse human habitation in human history”, but his findings also held for rural South Dakota, where “diversity means inviting Swedes to a Norwegians’ picnic”.
If his findings are even partially true, it implies huge challenges in a world of growing interaction. As YouTube, Face Book and MySpace become more widely used, a person living continents away may infringe upon our lives. And even our next-door neighbour may be less familiar to us than just a few decades ago. He might have been born in Afghanistan. She might have grown up in Poland.

We all live in diverse societies. How then, can we cooperate if we do not trust one another?  How can we build viable democratic institutions in a society of turtles? I believe this to be impossible. We need trust, and if it is not there, we need to search for it – and if necessary create it – together. After all, a democracy depends on the interaction and the free exchange of opinions by all its people.

Probably the situation is not fully as grave as suggested. There has always been diversity. It is human and universal. And it implies – and is in fact the engine of – profound wisdom and creativity. Mark Twain once said: “It were not best that we should all think alike; it is difference of opinion that makes horse races.”

Professor Putnam has more to add. He points to the need to create a new “we”. Our old Western ideal of homogeneity is simply not viable in the present world. We need to look for new ideals that are appropriate for our time, ideals that identify diversity as a resource and a treasure.

Trust needs to be reinvented in a new form that is not based on conformity . And we must learn to look for similarities as well as differences, when we are challenged by the new and the unknown.

All of us are complex human beings. We have many identities. I am a man and a husband and a father. I have a dog and I work at the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. I do not have to choose between being a father or State Secretary. I can be both. Neither should anyone have to choose between being a Muslim and Norwegian, Jew or citizen of Oslo.

We could probably find two young mothers living in the same street, working for the same employer, watching the same TV programmes. And yet at first sight we would probably focus on the differences between them rather than similarities, especially if these were to do with colour of skin or religious affiliation. In a changing and diverse society this should no longer be the case. We cannot accept such one-dimensional identity markers, which make the borders that divide us so simplistic. Because it impoverishes us and makes us smaller.

As our neighbourhood changes, we need to rediscover who we are. We tend to use words like “we” and “us”, assuming that we speak for everyone. Yet, we are learning that these terms can sometimes exclude rather than include. We need to listen in a new way in order to make words like “we” and “us” meaningful.

IDEA pursues the concept of “home-grown democracy”: democracy that originates and emerges from within rather than being imported from the outside. I support this approach, because is allows for the development democracies that reflect who we really are.

Democracy that comes from within has also proven to be the democracy that prevails. This is a lesson that should guide all of us that are involved in the promotion of democracy. To assist democratic developments in foreign countries has always been a complex task. It can never succeed without respect and thorough knowledge, and it can never succeed if not each country's unique political culture is taken as a point of departure. The work for democracy globally has become all the more challenging following the US-led intervention in Iraq. The intervention was to a large extent sought justified by the pursuit of democracy and human rights - but has not so far resulted in neither democracy nor peace for the Iraqi citizens. This has caused work for democracy to be met with caution and scepticism in many corners of the world, including, unfortunately, in countries that dearly need democratic change. I think IDEA, being a multilateral organisation with all regions represented, has a role to play in helping to break this unfortunate development.

In Norway, as in many other countries I am sure, we are in the process of shaping a new “we”. A “we” that is valid for all of our countrymen and -women, a “we” that can be adjusted as we change. A “we” that is more flexible, yet not without content. A “we” that knows what is sacred and cannot be compromised, even when challenged by new ideas.

We are learning what our fundamental values are: solidarity, equality, democracy and human rights – reinterpreted in our present context.  In my view, these fundamental rights are the building blocks of any democracy, home-grown or not. We will insist on the validity and interdependency of these rights. Even when my rights seem to limit yours. Even when two human rights appear to be colliding. And we will engage in a dialogue to resolve any situations of conflicting interests that arise.

But for this to be a real dialogue we need to listen to each other. We must be a “we” in order for “us” to build a democracy that can survive storms and tempests.

A “we” that excludes – explicitly or indirectly – women, gay people, the elderly, or Buddhists, becomes a fragile “we”. A chair with a leg missing is not safe to sit on.

Dr Walter H. Judd, founder of the American Freedom Coalition, once said: “People often say that, in a democracy, decisions are made by a majority of the people. Of course, that is not true. Decisions are made by a majority of those who make themselves heard and who vote - a very different thing.”

We need to start bridging the gap that Dr Judd refers to. We need to ensure that in our democracies, decisions really are made by a majority of the people, on the basis of a sound dialogue where all are free to – and encouraged to – participate.

I would like to thank IDEA again – for your contribution to this process; for your efforts to bridge the undemocratic gap in various parts of the world; and for arranging this seminar.

I wish you all an inspiring and fruitful day of brain storming and dialogue.