Critical review of "White Paper on Intercultural Dialogue"

This critical review shall endeavour to explain the report by the Council of Europe entitled “White Paper on Intercultural Dialogue Living Together As Equals in Dignity” with date 7 May 2008. It demonstrates the importance of establishing intercultural dialogue among the European member states and internationally, taking into aspect the globalisation and the facilitated communication facilitated by the latter. The White Paper seeks to advance the features of democracy, human rights and the rule of law through dialogue, the main instrument serving as a base should be the European Convention on Human Rights. The Paper describes the diversity of cultures, ethnicities and past hostile or peaceful history which however could not be viewed as a reason to reinforce state borders. On the contrary dialogue could be reached though willingness on both sides, willingness to eliminate discrimination, disrespect and disagreement.

The main points raised in the report are, in a first place outlining the positive features of intercultural dialogue, namely promotion of democracy, human rights and rule of law. According to the Council of Europe, all public spheres should participate in this dialogue- work place, education, media, politics, civil societies, art spheres. In a second place it defines the risks of non-dialogue. Despite the era of globalisation, interconnectedness and openness among nations, the non-dialogue could lead to segregation, scepticism of these nations about their openness. It would undermine the concept of globalisation at large. The White Paper describes five policy strategies where the intercultural dialogue should be promoted: democratic governance, participation of citizens’ life, learning intercultural capabilities, places where intercultural dialogue will be promoted, and the encouragement of the latter on the international scene. Finally, it presents suggestions for future action. In a first place intercultural dialogue need to be developed in neutral governmental and legal institutions- regional and national; public authorities should have respect for culturally divergent populations and should guarantee it through public services; public authorities should take positive actions to minimise the misrepresentation and estrangement of disadvantaged groups. The Council of Europe proposed to initiate from 2008 “intercultural cities” with the purpose of cultural exchanges, encourage good practice on governance and media.

The Council of Europe addresses to diverse range of groups and public bodies- from governmental to civil societies, youth organisations, educators etc. This technique would deeply embed, not only in national, but on regional level as well. The White Paper explains that “the old approaches to the management of cultural diversity” are inadequate for our modern times. However, it does not mention which are these old approaches in order to, for instance, try to modernise them for the current expectations concerning intercultural dialogue. The culture does not change its entire meaning, in its definition is incorporated a certain degree of tradition, and it is that tradition being part of the culture that should be respected. In changing the approaches to the management of cultural diversity part of the tradition inherent for a given population would be undermined.

The report seems to endeavour replacing if not moving away from “multiculturalism” for the benefit of intercultural dialogue. The scope of multiculturalism appears to be broader and eventually lose its meaning, whereas intercultural dialogue is specifically directed towards interchange, discussion, respect of different cultures. The latter term might be preferred for its narrow and specific goal which has to be interconnected with the fundamental rights and freedoms enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights.

The report is presented as a recommendation how to promote intercultural dialogue and is not seeking to lay down terms. It is a step towards the development, but not a “detailed road map”. The next step is left to governmental bodies, on regional and national level, media, education, civil societies etc. to pursue the dialogue.