Yascha Mounk (Munich, 40 years old) is an American of German origin who does not hide a slight German accent in his fluent, agile and convincing English, but rather cultivates it. During the Trump era, he became a star intellectual, courted by all media. His latest book, The Great Experiment: Why Diverse Democracies Fail and How to Make Them Work (State and Society) is a story of democracies that face the daunting challenge of managing diverse and multicultural societies, but it’s also a defense democratic institutions and the rule of law. It is necessary for this current diversity to work, argues Mounk, to avoid disastrous results. As a visiting professor at St. Antony’s College in Oxford, he receives EL PAÍS in the canteen of a university facility, whose tranquility represents the complete opposite of the heat and hectic of the political debates in which the author likes to get involved.
ASK.His ideas almost swim against the tide. He sees the threats to democracy but believes democracy is stronger…
REPLY.A very large number of democracies are about to be taken over by authoritarianism, such as Hungary, Brazil or India. Even the democracies we have always thought more stable are under serious threat, as in the case of the United States. But at the same time, authoritarian governments have proven to be quite weak over the past two years. Russia today is not attractive and has weakened its position in the world with the terrible and unjust attack on Ukraine. And China no longer seems to be the model for success that it was a few years ago.
P. Xi Jinping has entrenched himself in power for at least another five years.
If you want to support the development of quality journalism, subscribe.
Subscribe to
RWhat we have is a global crisis of confidence that is wrong at its source. Because compared to dictatorships, democracy is still quite attractive. Ten years ago, China had impressive economic success, and there was a degree of freedom for its citizens, a degree of foreign media consumption, even mild forms of criticism in non-party-dominated spaces. Today it is an authoritarian structure that has become totalitarian and whose reputation abroad has suffered greatly.
PAnd yet we do not see the progress of our democracies.
R. We have seen tremendous advances in the status of women or in gay rights. In fact, we have witnessed a rapid transformation of many European societies that have a much more multi-ethnic self-image. There have been very important advances for minorities in countries like the United States. So, for me, the real challenge to democracy is ethnic or religious diversity, although I have reason to be optimistic about that challenge.
PIt is the central theme of his latest book. The challenge of multiculturalism.
R. We are experiencing an unprecedented situation in many countries. Spain, Germany – where I grew up – Switzerland, Italy… they were all fairly homogenous. All shared an ethnic origin, although as in Spain there were linguistic differences. The concept of nation was that of ethnic and cultural homogeneity.
PAnd now many citizens do not digest the change before their eyes.
R. All of these countries are now trying to build a new society that is more ethnically and religiously diverse and treats all its citizens equally. There is no precedent for the success of such an attempt in all of human history. That’s why I speak of the “great experiment”.
PThey point to three main obstacles in trying to get it off the ground.
R. The first is that humans are tribal. We tend to be very generous and altruistic, even brave, to our group members. But we do not feel obligated to do the same to those outside the group. We can be incredibly cruel with them. Second, groups can create barriers between themselves based on criteria of ethnicity, religion, language, or nationality, which has led to the most destructive wars, genocides, and ethnic cleansing in living memory.
P. And the third, the most striking, is that democracy may not be the best tool to meet these challenges.
RExactly. As defenders of democracy, we tend to believe that all these problems can be solved through electoral mechanisms, but the only thing we achieve is to exacerbate them. In an absolute monarchy neither you nor I would have any power. We should trust that the system will find a solution. And if you’re an immigrant and you have more children than me and I feel like you’re stealing from me, there’s nothing I can do. But in a democracy we form majorities. If I used to be in the majority and now see you are part of a growing sector, maybe I’m scared of the future and try to concentrate power before I lose it.
More information
PNo formula for integration seems to have worked, neither the one that makes us homogeneous – the United States – nor the one that divides groups almost into ghettos – the United Kingdom.
RWe have to ask ourselves what kind of metaphor we want to adopt when we think about integration. The traditional image of the United States and other countries is that of the melting pot, the pot in which everything is mixed. Different cultures are integrated into a homogeneous culture. Other sociologists have taken up the idea of the salad bowl, also known as the mosaic. Communities living side by side without interacting. Both models are wrong in my opinion. I propose a third, which I define as a public park. A place where we can meet different citizens and have a chat. A liberal democracy allows us these connections while socializing most of the time with our religious community or our national origins.
PThey propose an interesting glue, an idea of patriotism that is both attractive and effective.
RI am German Jew. Neither nationalism nor patriotism comes naturally to me. But over the last 20 years I have come to understand the power of national symbols and rhetoric. It is an illusion to believe that we are in a post-nationalist era. Now I believe that patriotism is a semi-domesticated animal that is very dangerous in the hands of some.
PAnd neither the ethnic nor the one that adjusts to the lowest common denominator of a constitutional text applies.
RTraditionally there have been two approaches. An ethnic nationalism that has justified aggression against the outside world and which I reject. And then the so-called constitutional or civic patriotism. I’m more inclined towards this second one, which usually focuses on the laws and rights that unite us. But I believe that maintaining the solidarity necessary to sustain different democracies is not enough. Therefore, we should strive for a “cultural patriotism” that refers to cities, landscapes, sights, smells, cultural peculiarities, even famous people or YouTube stars. A celebration of the present, dynamic, changing and already containing the influences of immigrants and different groups. A daily cultural patriotism that lets us take away our fear.
Sign up for the weekly Ideas Newsletter here.
Subscribe to continue reading
read limitless