The Australian government’s push for a social cohesion agenda amid the Gaza conflict spill-over raises concerns about potential misuse. Social cohesion, in itself, is a valuable goal, promoting unity and harmony among diverse groups. However, it can be weaponized to silence dissent and stifle critical voices.
The politics of “social cohesion”
In the midst of a genocide, calls for “social cohesion” are obscene. We don’t need cohesion. We need the killing to stop.– @Jeff_Sparrow on Labor and the criminalisation of dissent.
- Suppression of Dissent
- If social cohesion is used to silence criticism or alternative viewpoints
- Example: Labeling protest movements as threats to social harmony
- Limiting Free Speech
- If cohesion policies restrict expression of certain ideas or beliefs
- Example: Overly broad hate speech laws that limit legitimate discourse
- Enforced Conformity
- If cohesion is interpreted as uniformity, pressuring minorities to assimilate
- Example: Policies that discourage public expressions of cultural or religious identity
- Centralized Control
- If the government assumes too much power in defining and enforcing ‘cohesion’
- Example: Top-down approaches that ignore grassroots community perspectives
- Manipulation of Public Opinion
- If cohesion narratives are used to shape public perception in favor of ruling parties
- Example: Using state media to promote a singular vision of national unity
- Exclusion of Minority Views
- If cohesion is defined by majority standards, potentially marginalizing minority groups
- Example: Policies that favor dominant cultural practices in public institutions
- Co-opting Marginalized Groups:
- Governments might use social cohesion initiatives to co-opt marginalized groups, neutralizing their critical voices and assimilating them into the dominant narrative.
- Masking Systemic Issues:
- By emphasizing social cohesion, governments might sidestep addressing underlying structural problems, such as discrimination, inequality, or social injustice.
A social cohesion agenda is not inherently anti-democratic or democratic. Its relationship to democratic principles depends largely on:
- The specific goals and methods of the agenda
- How it is implemented and enforced
- The broader political and social context in which it operates
- The degree to which it respects and promotes fundamental democratic values
A truly democratic social cohesion agenda should:
- Respect individual rights and freedoms
- Promote equality and non-discrimination
- Encourage diverse voices in public discourse
- Strengthen democratic institutions and processes
- Be developed through inclusive, participatory processes
However, if a social cohesion agenda prioritizes a narrow definition of unity over pluralism, restricts fundamental freedoms, or is used to consolidate power for a particular group, it can indeed become anti-democratic.
The key is to remain vigilant and critically examine social cohesion policies and their impacts, ensuring they enhance rather than undermine democratic principles. Open debate about the nature and implementation of such policies is itself a hallmark of a healthy democracy.
Leave a Reply