Address at the Colloquium 'Towards a Constructive Pluralism'

Our esteemed UNESCO Director-General, Dr Federico Mayor, distinguished participants, Representatives of Permanent Missions, Ladies and Gentlemen,


Let me at the very outset express my pleasure at being here with you this morning at UNESCO Headquarters.


UNESCO and the Commonwealth have much in common. It is not surprising, therefore, that the bonds that link our two organisations together are so strong and enduring - and that they are growing all the time.


One reflection of our sense of common endeavour came earlier this year, when I was privileged to have been able to address UNESCO's Intergovernmental Conference on Cultural Policies for Development, held in Stockholm - a welcome and an important initiative.


Another occurred 18 months ago in this building, when I addressed the UNESCO Executive Board. It is good to be back here and to be again, if I may say so, amongst old friends.


I referred on the last occasion I was here to the active co-operation that exists between UNESCO and the Commonwealth. This very meeting represents an important strand in that co-operation.


May I therefore begin this morning by recalling the conversation between Dr Mayor and myself which led to the decision to convene this colloquium.


I remember that we had both long recognised the importance of the subject that will be discussed here over the next two and a half days.

We knew that modern societies are increasingly characterised by cultural, ethnic and religious diversity and that this should be a cause for celebration.


We appreciated that such diversity often is celebrated. In some societies it is appreciated as a source of richness and strength, as different communities interact positively with each other and create a more varied, dynamic and tolerant society as a result.


Societies can work well, their members can understand that diversity is neither an obstacle to be overcome nor a problem to be solved, but an asset to be acclaimed.


But at the same time, Dr Mayor and I also knew only too well that there are also situations in which difference is associated not with celebration but with tension and conflict.


People from different cultures are not always able even to tolerate each other, still less live together in creative harmony.


Diversity can be the occasion for division, even warfare - as the history of the post-Cold War period illustrates.


Few countries, and no continents, are exempt. Modern Europe, for instance, is replete with examples of atrocities committed in the name of ethnicity and religion. So is Africa; and so is Asia.


I believe that Commonwealth countries have particularly important insights to contribute. Indeed, our network is uniquely well placed to take action against what I have called "divisive" pluralism and for a constructive pluralism, because we have such extensive experience in, and understanding of, the management of diversity.


Yet even those in the Commonwealth who have done most to confront the challenge - for instance, those countries which have so successfully forged national unity out of diverse and often antagonistic ethnic, religious or linguistic groups - would agree that in none of our countries has the challenge been fully surmounted. And in many, as my own involvement in behind-the-scenes 'good offices' diplomacy attests, there is a very long way to go.


Dr Mayor and I knew all this. We also knew that addressing the issue internationally mattered. After all, according to one study, 79 of the 82 conflicts around the world between 1989 and 1992 were intra-state in nature and most of them were linked to ethnic or religious differences.


As I have warned on many occasions, unless appropriate action is taken, the problem of 'divisive pluralism' will constitute one of the key threats to peace in the twenty-first century. Today, it is clearer than ever that we ignore it and its causative factors at our peril.

So we decided that we should together convene a small but high-powered conference to consider how 'divisive pluralism' can be combated where it already exists; how it can be prevented where it does not; and how we can build a positive and constructive approach to pluralism for the future.


We wanted a 'brains trust' that would take thinking on this important subject forward. And our expectations have been more than fulfilled. I am delighted that so many leading figures - both practitioners and theorists - have come together here today to pick up the challenge we have posed.


I must admit that I have some sympathy for the view that, to amend Mark Twain, what should concern us most is not what we do not understand. Rather, it should be what we already understand only too well.


We already understand quite a lot about the causes of 'divisive pluralism'. And we already know some of the ways in which we can make progress, in the words of our guiding theme, Towards a Constructive Pluralism.


We know, for instance, that sustained and sustainable development is always likely to be helpful in the promotion of a constructive interaction between individuals and groups in plural societies.


We also know that the conditions for a constructive pluralism can only be successfully attained in the context of a shared commitment to democracy. Indeed, in many ways consideration of the ways in which we can accommodate and celebrate difference comes down to how we can make our democracies function better.


The UN system and the Commonwealth rightly see their vocation as being to promote both the democratic principle and effective action to sustain it in practice.


So the Commonwealth, for instance, organises a range of activities to strengthen the institutions and the culture of democracy in our 54 member countries, each one of which subscribes to a set of fundamental political values embodied in the Harare Commonwealth Declaration of 1991.


The Secretariat organises independent Commonwealth Election Observer Groups. We provide technical assistance. We run workshops and training courses to promote good practice.


Various programmes promote good governance, the rule of law, human rights awareness, transparency and accountability in the public service, and so on. And increasingly we are working to help member countries to entrench, and to deepen, their democracies. We recently organised a workshop, for instance, on the Role of the Opposition, focusing on the reciprocal rights and responsibilities of the Government and the Opposition.

I am convinced that we will need to return to this theme of deepening democracy again and again in the years to come if we are to ensure that our democracies are as healthy as they need to be.


Sustainable development. Democracy. Both these are essential. We must also include in our list of "what we understand only too well" the importance of:


enshrining in our constitutions and laws such sacrosanct principles as secularism, the rights of minorities and the equality of all people regardless of race, religion, colour, sex or creed;


the establishment of oversight institutions to stand guard over these principles;


and legislation and other action against behaviour that seeks to negate these principles.




I include under that heading, for instance, devices such as Codes of Conduct or other inter-party agreements which guard against the exploitation of ethnic and other difference by political parties.


Sustainable development, democracy, constitutional and other legal safeguards: we already know that they are important in the effort to combat and forestall 'divisive pluralism' and to promote a positive and constructive alternative.


But these alone do not constitute a panacea. Complacency is neither appropriate, given the scale of the problem, nor a characteristic of either of our organisations. There is always more than we can and should know, new truths to discover, lessons to be learned and re-learned.


Inevitably and rightly, a 'brains trust' such as this must be concerned with extending our knowledge and deepening our understanding. There are thorny and difficult issues for us to confront. There are matters which are, to borrow a phrase, seen through a glass darkly at present and which must be brought into sharper focus. The idea must be to clarify, to attain a deeper insight, to emerge with a fuller understanding.


In that spirit, let me take this opportunity to point up the themes in your Agenda which I believe matter most.


You will have seen that in Session One we hope that participants will consider how plural societies function and the results when cultural, ethnic, religious and other differences are not managed effectively, or when they are deliberately exploited.


Equally, we hope that consideration will be given to the positive concept of 'constructive pluralism', both as an objective and a process, and how it differs from mere passive toleration of difference.

Both themes are important. Examples of the subversive and destabilising effects of 'divisive pluralism' abound. But it is also important that attention should be given to the alternative, positive, concept.


As your Overview Paper says, difference need not produce conflict, any more than sameness necessarily results in solidarity. The challenge is to devise a 'vision' of the way in which people can live together harmoniously in the larger society while at the same time being able to maintain, rather than dilute or lose, a strong sense of belonging to their particular cultural, ethnic, religious or other community.


That, if you like, sets the scene. We come then to the role of the State, which clearly plays a key role in the management of pluralism both through the policies, practices and programmes promoted by its institutions and the very design of those institutions themselves.


The policies pursued by State bodies can exacerbate the tensions and problems that may accompany pluralism, and thereby contribute to destructive and negative outcomes. Or they can stimulate understanding and 'constructive engagement' between different groups and communities and have a positive effect.


Similarly, the design of State institutions, whether deliberately or otherwise, can accentuate division, with sometimes tragic results. Or those institutions can be configured so that they are able to respond to the needs of particular communities and so strengthen, rather than weaken, loyalty to the overall structure.


The challenge is to construct those institutions in such a way that they are capable of representing - and being seen as legitimate by - individuals and groups with varied, and even profoundly divergent, values, ideals and identities.


Here I would like to mention an enthusiasm of my own which I believe will be relevant to this part of our discussion. For I am personally convinced that greater individual empowerment through de-centralisation and the devolution of power away from the centre can not only be valuable in itself but often vital in the context of our current discussion.


I hope that this colloquium will be able to spend some time discussing the role of de-centralising measures so as to avoid the marginalisation of some and promote instead constructive pluralism within inclusive democracies.


But, of course, it remains for each country, each society, to devise constitutional arrangements most suited to its own circumstances.


So far as civil society is concerned, the theme that stands out to me is the way in which NGO, business, religious groups and other networks can encourage communication and sponsor and strengthen a culture of co-operation between different communities, especially at the local level.

They can help to break down or to reinforce prejudice and stereotypes. They can promote positive or negative images. They can have a creative or a destructive effect.

Either way, their impact on culturally, ethnically and religiously diverse societies can be enormous. The question I hope participants will address is whether any general lessons can be learned from recent experience and whether particular approaches should be commended for wider application in the future.


May I add here that we in the Commonwealth attach great importance to the existence of a strong and responsive civil society and therefore to the work of non-governmental organisations.


The final session of this colloquium, the discussion on Friday afternoon and Saturday morning entitled The Future of Pluralism, provides an opportunity for participants to discuss the main points which have emerged from the preceding sessions, to agree on a report of the colloquium - we have called it an Outcomes document - and to make recommendations for follow-up action.


In many ways that is the most important session, and it is therefore important that it should give proper priority to the practical. Conceptual elegance and intellectual clarity are virtues to be prized and are rightly sought after.


But in this context they are not enough. To be beneficial to those who are trying to manage diversity your concluding session must above all be informed by the discipline that comes with putting the priority on workable, practical, outcomes.


And since there is no other point in the agenda at which you are prompted to consider the role of inter-governmental organisations, may I suggest that you might include this in your final discussion.


I want to conclude with three thoughts. First, I want to suggest that one theme which you might take up in the days to come is the way in which we deal with the past.


This is not a matter of academic interest alone, because it seems to me that in all societies this has a considerable influence on how well difference is dealt with.


A proper concern with the past - even with a distorted version of it - need not be a negative phenomenon. But that can become a defensive and narrow obsession with what has been, rather than an engagement with what might yet be.


It can mean consistently looking backwards for inspiration. And very often, I fear, that can work against a positive and constructive vision of pluralism.


As L P Hartley wrote in The Go-Between, "the past is a foreign country, they do things differently there".

Secondly, at some point I hope you will consider the impact of globalisation on the matter before you. I notice that this is an issue to which you, Dr Mayor, have also drawn attention as recently as the end of last year, when you spoke of people losing their bearings and withdrawing increasingly into nationalism and xenophobia.

So I am sure you will agree with me that, unless we take appropriate action, as the globalising trend becomes ever more powerful the tendency will be towards greater and greater insecurity. And on the back of that, the opportunities for the exploitation of human difference will multiply.


The final thought I want to leave with you is very basic. I spoke earlier of the insights we already have. We know of the relevance of combating poverty and promoting socio-economic development. We realise why it matters that we should extend liberty. We appreciate the importance of enshrining certain key principles in our constitutions.


But perhaps the most important of those matters which we already understand is that there can be no progress without an ethic of tolerance.


That, in turn, relies on a spirit of co-operation and dialogue.


And fundamental to both is as widespread as possible an understanding of our inter-dependence and a genuine acceptance of the concept of our common humanity, rather than notions of 'otherness'.


It is a simple point, but it is basic.


It was prompted by reading Professor Mazrui's paper, at the end of which he quotes the 17th century English metaphysical poet, Andrew Marvell.


Reading Marvell in turn sent me to another 17th century English metaphysical poet, John Donne, and reminded me of his Devotions Upon Emergent Occasions.


In what could well be a fitting emblem for this colloquium, John Donne wrote there the famous words:


No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were . . . any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.


It is that concept of an interdependent world and an inseparable humanity carried in John Donne's words which is the key to all we do here; and I wish you well as you set out on your task.

for Commonwealth Day
Paris, Thursday 28 January 1999