It comes as no surprise that ethnic diversity characterizes the great majority of the countries in the world. For coping with cultural diversity in society, a democratic social policy may be required. Multiculturalism is an example of the former and, as systematic and comprehensive response to diversity, focuses on two levels. The first is reflection of the cultural values of all various ethnic groups which constitute the society. The second is promotion of not only formal but effective equality before the law with no unintended discriminatory impact on the members of ethnic minority groups (Jovanović, 2005). By common consent it is currently established that being a minority implies being numerically inferior to the dominant majority in the
…show more content…
As such, undermining of the group identity is forbidden. Moreover, according to Article 4 of the UN Minority Declaration, States have to create favourable conditions for development of the culture, language, religion, traditions and customs of minorities, unless the national law is violated. On the other hand, minorities are also required to integrate with the dominant culture. In such a way it is more possible for a State to ensure human rights and be nondiscriminatory and respectful towards every person within its territory. Evidently, the notions of “preservation” and “integration” appear to be contradictory and rather difficult to appropriately combine. Thus, legal boundaries are set to protect minority members from forced integration and abandonment of their separate identities. For instance, Article 5 of the Council of Europe Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities states that regardless of the State’s integration policies to be pursued, these shall not aim at assimilation of persons belonging to national minorities against their will. Hence, it can be concluded that the concepts of “integration” and “assimilation” differ. Although they both incorporate shared values, equal treatment and a common rule of law for members of both dominant and minority groups, the former does allow for pluralism (Eide,
As such, undermining of the group identity is forbidden. Moreover, according to Article 4 of the UN Minority Declaration, States have to create favourable conditions for development of the culture, language, religion, traditions and customs of minorities, unless the national law is violated. On the other hand, minorities are also required to integrate with the dominant culture. In such a way it is more possible for a State to ensure human rights and be nondiscriminatory and respectful towards every person within its territory. Evidently, the notions of “preservation” and “integration” appear to be contradictory and rather difficult to appropriately combine. Thus, legal boundaries are set to protect minority members from forced integration and abandonment of their separate identities. For instance, Article 5 of the Council of Europe Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities states that regardless of the State’s integration policies to be pursued, these shall not aim at assimilation of persons belonging to national minorities against their will. Hence, it can be concluded that the concepts of “integration” and “assimilation” differ. Although they both incorporate shared values, equal treatment and a common rule of law for members of both dominant and minority groups, the former does allow for pluralism (Eide,