| Chapter 2: | Background |
|
|
More than that, democratic pluralism allows the members of diverse groups not only to live next to each other in peace, but also to thrive spiritually, economically, linguistically, and intellectually.
Doran claimed that the merits of democratic pluralism can be assessed only in a specific, propitious context. Judging the validity of democratic pluralism as a norm can be done, for the most part, only in advanced countries, because only those countries create a context that allows for the observation of the principles of democratic pluralism. The problems of development may overshadow what can be expected of pluralism. Furthermore, the lack of experience with democracy (and thus the lack of democratic culture) can also outshine the qualities of democratic pluralism. Finally, a pervasive and intense violence can also create a situation in which the merits of democratic pluralism cannot be assessed, because the observance of pluralistic principles in such a situation is highly unlikely.
The greatest risk for democratic pluralism, according to Doran, is the notion of divisive nationalism expressed as secessionist movements. He argued after Eric J. Hobsbawm (1990) that, unlike the earlier nationalism, which was essentially unifying in nature, the nationalist movements of the late 20th century are negative and rather divisive.
The philosophy of separation negates the principles of democratic pluralism because it professes the “incompatibility” of diverse cultural values and preferences. In liberal democracy, where the human rights of individuals and groups are guaranteed, separatist movements occur for the single purpose of refusing to associate politically and communicate intensely in a single democracy with citizens of differing ethnolinguistic affiliation. Such refusal to live next to someone culturally or ethnically different is equivalent to the desire to discriminate (Doran, 2001), and it stands against the principles of democratic pluralism and toleration.
Doran (2001) disagrees in principle with the argument put forward by Alesina and Spolaore (2003), which regards secessions and the creation of smaller homogeneous countries as desirable. While the preference for homogeneity might be regarded by some as natural and inevitable, at the same time it may be regarded as quite unnatural in the context of increasing multiculturalism in the 21st century.