Multiculturalism emerged at the forefront of Western Europe after the Second World War, gaining prominence during decolonization and the post-war flow of labor migrants. Introduced as a model that acknowledged difference while preserving equal citizenship, multiculturalism gained momentum in Britain, Canada, and later across Europe. Subsequently, several European states adopted components of multicultural policy by the 1980s and 1990s. For instance, Britain encouraged ethnic community associations. The Netherlands, on the other hand, pursued a form of “pillarization,” allowing communities to keep their own schools and cultural institutions. Germany took a different approach, gradually shifting from a guest-worker approach toward recognizing permanent immigrants. For a while, these changes looked like progress for liberal democracy.
In the past two decades, however, this vision has come under heavy strain. In 2010, Chancellor Angela Merkel said that multiculturalism in Germany had “utterly failed.” Likewise, in 2011, then British Prime Minister David Cameron criticized what he called “state multiculturalism.” Together, these incidents represented the hidden growing unease within European societies related to immigration and diversity that it might indeed be weakening the social fabric.
The Rise of the Backlash
From the PEGIDA marches in Dresden to the populist energy behind Brexit in 2016, Europe has witnessed a surge of anti-immigrant rallies and movements. The electoral strength of figures such as Marine Le Pen in France or the Alternative für Deutschland in Germany reflects a deeper cultural anxiety running through these societies. Political scientist Cas Mudde has shown how the populist right depicts multiculturalism as an elite project that overlooks ordinary citizens’ concerns, and argues that many people feel a loss of cultural continuity, pressure on welfare systems, and job insecurity.
Opposition to immigration is often framed by those participating in these rallies as a defence of sovereignty and stability rather than hatred. Amidst this, Christian Joppke notes that many Europeans saw multiculturalism as creating parallel societies and feared that minorities were not integrating, but rather were isolating themselves. This has been particularly evident in France, where the republican model emphasises on strict secularism; visible religious or cultural differences, particularly among Muslim communities, have often been seen as clashing with national identity.
Does This Mean Multiculturalism Failed?
It is very tempting to read anti-immigrant mobilization as an indication that multiculturalism has failed. Such a deduction, however, is based on a misreading of the idea of multiculturalism and reflects a flawed understanding. A closer look at this makes it apparent that the fault may lie less with the idea itself and more with its partial implementation. Notably, on this matter, Tariq Modood argued that multiculturalism was often narrowed to symbolic gestures like recognition of holidays or foods, without tackling deeper inequalities in housing, education, and political voice. Furthermore, in this regard, Nancy Fraser’s “redistribution-recognition dilemma” also provides a useful perspective, which states that recognising cultural difference without economic redistribution makes minorities visible but keeps them marginalised.
Making matters worse, incidents such as the London bombings in 2005 and the murder of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh in 2004 provoked panic. Ultimately, it led governments to retreat from multicultural policies. However, this approach of abandoning multiculturalism entirely can undeniably risk poor management being confused with an impossible ideal. To that end, some argue that Europe never fully committed to multicultural demands, as it treated multiculturalism as optional tolerance rather than as a structural rethinking of democracy.
Tracing the Fears Behind the Movement
At the same time, it is worth mentioning that simply dismissing the anxieties behind anti-immigrant movements as wholly irrational is unfair, as rapid demographic change indeed unsettles social norms. This was evident during the Syrian refugee crisis of 2015. During this crisis, over a million asylum seekers entered Europe, which eventually led to strained housing, welfare, and schools. In this regard, that is, during periods of economic austerity, these pressures are felt most by the working class, who may then see immigration as competition rather than enrichment. Ricard Zapata-Barrero hereby notes that when states fail to craft effective integration policies, diversity can then be linked to insecurity, thus boosting populist backlash. The debate, therefore, should not be merely seen as a litmus test of right versus wrong, because anti-immigrant mobilization highlights genuine policy failures even where its rhetoric distorts or scapegoats.
A Global Mirror: The United States
This isn’t unique to Europe. Long described as a “nation of immigrants,” the United States also struggles with the contradictions of multiculturalism. Even though the 1960s civil rights movement further pushed the country toward stronger ideals of racial and cultural equality, anti-immigrant sentiment still managed to emerge later, as evident from the recent “build the wall” campaign to violent episodes like Charlottesville in 2017, all thereby echoing European anxieties. Intensifying this scenario, President Trump, in late May 2025, announced restrictions on foreign student visas at Harvard University and revoked Harvard’s certification under the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP). This now bars the university from enrolling international students and forces existing F-1 students to transfer or lose status. However, some signal this as another move towards America’s continuing nationalist retreat, in line with “America First” and its withdrawal from global affairs. While others believe this policy to be based on the notion that multiculturalism fragments the nation. Yet a few argue that diversity fuels creativity and growth.
Lessons from India’s Experiment
India presents an important comparison in this context. India managed extraordinary diversity as early as 1950, even before the West embraced multiculturalism. Back in 1950, the Constitution of India recognised multiple languages, protected minority religions, and sought to combine secularism with pluralism. In addition to this, the founding fathers designed legal safeguards for caste and religious minorities in the Constitution. It is also pertinent to note that Indian secularism differs from the Western model. This is supported by the fact that, unlike the Western model, Indian secularism balances equal respect with minority rights, instead of an absolute separation of religion and state.
India’s experience makes one thing clear: multiculturalism must be based in constitutional and institutional structures. However, at times, even this balance can become fragile. For example, a few critics believe that India’s pluralistic model is now under threat, thereby suggesting that multiculturalism, even where it is foundational, requires constant defence and therefore establishes a very real possibility that multiculturalism is not a one-time achievement, but rather, a continuing negotiation.
The Future of Belonging
Anti-immigrant rallies across Europe do not necessarily signal the death of multiculturalism. In contrast, they reveal an underlying tension that is yet to be resolved between ideals of equality and fears about identity loss. This tension would only be exacerbated if multiculturalism were abandoned totally. Moreover, doing so would further risk retreating into ethno-nationalism. Defending it, however, would require the states to go beyond token recognition to real equality and civic participation. Amidst this, some suggest that it’s high time that the policy of interculturalism is embraced, which focuses not only on recognition of difference but also on shared projects and dialogue.
The more likely truth is to accept the paradox, i.e., multiculturalism is both indispensable and incomplete; it is indispensable because diverse societies need recognition and respect to function, while at the same time, it is incomplete as each generation must adapt it to new realities.
In this regard, it is clear that the perception of multiculturalism needs to be revisited. The states must move beyond symbolic recognition to substantive implementation, since token gestures not only fail to resolve such deep-rooted tensions but often exacerbate them, as evident from the recent developments. Ultimately, Europe, the United States, and India have all evidently shown that multiculturalism is not a stable endpoint but an ongoing struggle over the meaning of democracy and belonging.
Featured/Headline Image Caption and Citation: Diversity Protests in Spain, Image sourced from Wikimedia Commons | CC License, no changes made