Over the past few decades, multiculturalism has emerged as one of the leading contemporary political theories and popularized by prominent scholars such as Will Kymlicka, Charles Taylor, Bhikhu Parekh, Iris Young and Tariq Modood.

By definition, multiculturalism deals with political recognition of the cultural differences and identities and therefore normatively would shape the politics of integration and citizenship within a nation-state.

This basic idea assumes a dominant culture within a particular society. In the Western societies where a dominant culture can be easily identified, it is not difficult to consider the idea of multiculturalism.

For example, in Europe the notion of ethnic minorities has been about the postwar extra-European or non-white immigrants. Adapting a multicultural approach in such a context therefore means recognizing the cultural differences and respecting the identities of people, including those of ethnic minorities, and working toward an equal and undifferentiated citizenship in a unitary nation-state.

While recognition here, at least as a term, may seem to be an abstract idea, in the politics of multiculturalism this should be exercised at the level of public policies. Tariq Modood (2007) argues that "multiculturalism refers to the struggle, the political mobilization but also the policy and institutional outcomes, to the forms of accommodation in which 'differences' are not eliminated, are not washed away but to some extent recognized".

As I have indicated, the above basic premise of multiculturalism would do in a society where a dominant culture can be easily identified. In Asia, including Indonesia, multiculturalism would face a profound challenge regarding how we can define basic categories employed in the Western model of multiculturalism.

It is difficult to make sense of categories such as "immigrants", "indigenous", "dominant culture" or "ethnic minority" in Asian societies, and so the relevance and consequences of the Western model of multiculturalism can be put into question.

Will Kymlicka (2005) suggests that the trend within Western societies toward the recognition of minorities can only work to a limited degree in Asian societies. He points out that in Asian societies, this limitation is due to some basic reasons such as they consider some minorities merely as potential allies of the state's enemies, they want to apply uniform law and property rights and they believe minorities will assimilate in time.

Consequently, the Western experience including its model of multiculturalism cannot be simply internationalized or Indonesianized. The question we may now ask is whether or not there is any Indonesian version of multiculturalism. Our Indonesian motto is Bhineka Tunggal Ika which means "unity in diversity".

This motto has been widely taught to every Indonesian to the point that a preschool child could easily recite it. Unfortunately, as far as the public discourse of the motto is concerned, we have not done it any justice. Since the formation of our nation, discourses have drawn heavily on the notion of "unity" while neglecting the side of "diversity".

The argument behind this is that our democratic nation-state would be under threat when the recognition of our cultural and communal differences is publicly stated. Consider the politics of tribal affiliations, religion, race and societal groups (SARA) as an example.

Since the New Order regime, national discourse has been trapped by the forbidden categories for public discussions of the so-called politics of SARA: suku (ethnicity), agama (religion), ras (race), and antar-golongan (intergroup), as rightly pointed out by John R. Bowen (2005).

The introduction of these forbidden categories produces a very limited open discussion on our diversity and its management. The reason is that when talking of culture, it is rather difficult to define what precisely Indonesian culture is.

Moreover, in the area of ethnicity, with thousands of ethnic groups in the country, one would have difficulty in describing a dominant ethnic group.

The same thing occurs when a discussion on race is held. Only when religion is brought into the discussion can we really find that Muslims are the majority group.

With these conditions added to the forbidden categories for public discourse, instead of allowing a more open discussion on our diversity, this diversity is then used merely for a public display as seen in the "miniature garden" in Jakarta -- the Taman Mini Indah Indonesia -- or in the ways we wear our traditional attires during certain national feast days such as Independence Day.

When interreligious tension and ethnic conflict occur -- particularly since the 1990s -- we realize we have done very little in managing our diversity.

Turning back to our discussion: It is probably too early to propose a special department dealing with our diversity. However, on the level of discourse, accommodation and recognition of our differences play a critical role in safeguarding our nation-state and at the same time minimizing the possibility of noisy internal threats.

Policies that are simply based on the idea of homogenization for the sake of unity would provoke more systematic efforts and attempts to challenge our tolerance and integral nationhood when equal opportunities for citizens are denied.

Of course a false recognition of diversity would produce alienation and discrimination. Indeed one big step has been taken in the politics of autonomy for our provinces.

The challenge, however, remains: How do we find ways of encouraging more open and critical discussions of differences in which the differences are evaluated not only from the inside of our various cultures but also from the outside in terms of the ways we represent our diversity? Unity is our normative guide which helps us to see where we are going.

However, without understanding the reality of our diversity that defines where we are today, we simply cannot move forward. What we really need to do now is move from a mere celebration of our diversity to a more dialogic discourse and management of our differences.

The writer is a research student in the Department of Sociology, University of Bristol, UK.

Popular

RI, Australia strengthen partnership on taxing crypto assets

Analysis: Indonesia denies normalization with Israel to enter OECD

Citroen to produce electric cars in Indonesia