T

he idea of multiculturalism became fashionable in Indonesia after the Reformasi in 1998. It was adopted by many circles in lieu of creating a more tolerant society amid the burgeoning sectarian conflicts following the resignation of long-time ruler Soeharto.

Today, while tolerance is in short supply everywhere, the concept faces serious challenges in the West. Not very long ago, Chancellor Angela Merkel announced that, in Germany, multiculturalism had “failed, utterly failed”. Sharing the podium with her, Horst Seehoffer, the Bavarian State Premier, more strongly stated that “multiculturalism is dead.”

Is multiculturalism dead, too, in Indonesia?

Merkel’s statements echo the anti-immigrant sentiments rising sharply in Germany and Europe in general over the past few years. In the week before she made her remarks, a study by the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung foundation found more than 30 percent of people surveyed agreed that Germany was “overrun by foreigners” and some immigrants had only come to Germany to take advantage of its social welfare, and therefore “should be sent home when jobs are scarce”. This is regardless of the fact that, as Germany’s Labor minister Ursula von der Leyen said, for several years, more people have been leaving Germany than entering it.

The irony here is that the death sentence for multiculturalism was “officially” announced in Germany, the birthplace of the enlightenment project that played a significant role in fertilizing the growth of modern liberalism. But, perhaps, the current intolerance stems from the very assumption of liberalism itself.

Liberal toleration, at least in its Lockian-Kantian strand, was based on the assumption that there is a universal truth, a universal idea of a good life. People hold different values and lead different ways of life because they don’t see the truth in the law of nature yet.

“What is toleration?” asked Voltaire. “It is the appurtenance of humanity. We are all full of weaknesses and errors; let us mutually pardon each other for our follies.” Toleration is needed so that rational debate can occur which will lead to the enlightenment and consensus. Hence, the end of toleration is a rational consensus.

This assumption emerged in the early modern Europe and was successful in a homogenous Europe. For more than 200 years, liberalism has been a powerful force of emancipation, tolerance and open-mindedness in Europe. The problem is that it does not have room for differences that cannot be rationally resolved.

Implicit in this rational toleration is that you will be tolerated as long as you can be tolerated; but if you are too far astray, you cannot be tolerated. This is why John Locke, considered by many as the father of liberalism, did not extend toleration to Catholics and atheists. This is the limit of liberal toleration.

Chancellor Merkel apparently is tired of waiting for the Turks and the Kurds to be “enlightened”. Instead of embracing the mainstream German culture, they keep their faith, speak their language and, in the words of popular German author Thilo Sarazin, “continue to produce little head-scarfed girls”. Just like the Catholics and the atheists in Locke’s time, they, too, cannot be tolerated. They must assimilate!

It is doubtful that Merkel’s solution will work. Germany, Europe and the world of today, with its high migration and communication technology, are heterogeneous worlds. In these worlds it becomes obvious that not all values are universal; values are often incompatible and even universal values are often incommensurable.

Perhaps what Merkel encounters today is the real difference: the value incompatibility that cannot be reconciled by rational consensus, fundamental differences in the idea of good life. It is hard to see assimilation as the solution for this problem. The boundary of assimilation is always shifting; to what extent people have to assimilate is never clear.

In Indonesia, Merkel’s solution is impossible even to entertain. Indonesia is the diversity par excellence. Indeed, even the national language, Bahasa Indonesia, is a second language for most Indonesians. Assimilation is a luxury Indonesia does not have.

We need to think of a way to deal with real differences. We need to conceptualize a toleration that does not end in rational consensus, but in coexistence. Instead of thinking about a melting pot, we should imagine what former Mayor of New York City David Dinkin called a “gorgeous mosaic”. Long live multiculturalism.

The writer is a lecturer at Paramadina Graduate School and senior advisor at Partnership for Governance Reform.