Now that I’ve published a booklet through Foyer about integration policy between 1989 and 2003 — the period during which I first served as chief of staff to the Royal Commissioner for Migrant Policy (RCMP, 1989–1993), and later as director of the Centre for Equal Opportunities and Opposition against Racism (CEOOR, 1993–2003) — I’ll be summarizing some elements from this booklet in a series of around eight blog posts: one per week. Perhaps more will follow… if I happen to remember something along the way. And I won’t be publishing everything from the booklet here, of course.
Today, a few thoughts on the integration concept from 1989, which was at the time strongly contested by some academics and some young second-generation migrants.

So, what did this policy concept state?

1. The law applies to everyone, without exception.
2. Nevertheless, there are a few basic societal orientation principles that apply to everyone.
3. Within the space created by principles 1 and 2, respect must be shown for diversity.
4. This was complemented by a fourth principle: policy should prioritize the promotion of social participation for everyone, including people from minority groups.

Critics consistently failed to mention the fourth point, but such selectivity is quite common in public debates. OK, but what exactly did the much-contested second point — the basic societal orientation principles — refer to? It was explicitly stated: speak the common language, strive for emancipation, etc. Critics portrayed this as a concession to the far right.

Looking back now, I still believe this point was justified. One can indeed misuse law and legislation (see point 1) to undermine emancipatory social achievements. In 1989, this was something we wanted to warn against. Moreover, one should also ask why minimal social cohesion should not be considered part of sound policy.

With the benefit of hindsight, I would say the only valid addition we failed to include at the time was the Canadian concept of “reasonable accommodation.” We should have added that there can be multiple interpretations of certain values and norms that cannot be scientifically defined, and that for such cases, a dialogue should lead to a temporary, preferably locally supported, agreement. But overall, this policy concept was quite defensible.

Yes, minimal social cohesion is a goal worth pursuing, and we should be careful not to enshrine its principles too rigidly in legislation. Doing so could lead to highly undesirable consequences — in fact, the opposite of what one might intend: the absolute, legally sanctioned power of a relative majority extending into the smallest details of a person’s life, including that of individuals from minority backgrounds.

The leaders of the various Brussels parties must realize that forming a Regional Government is, in their case, a civic duty. The federal level has taken its responsibility—Justice and Police will benefit from it. The Communities have also assumed their responsibility, ensuring that education should not suffer. Those failing in their civic duty are the leaders of the Brussels party system. This directly concerns the well-being of citizens and municipalities. It is well known that the situation in some municipalities is dire. It is also well known that the welfare sector is under immense strain.

The issue is simple: decide with whom you can sit at the table, bearing in mind that a majority must be formed one way or another. If you fail to do so, it is fair to say that the politicians involved can rightfully be accused of lacking civic responsibility.

I do not understand academics who propose alternatives.

It would not surprise me if the key guideline behind a thriving, future-oriented youth work lies in young people feeling part of a captivating story. Such a story should push boundaries, but in a way that keeps their self-confidence intact.

How this is implemented should be determined by each organization individually. What must absolutely be avoided is merely ticking of activities in a routine manner that do not align with this goal.

Triggered in many ways, the risk for youth organizations lies in offering a variety of activities that lead only to consumption and temporary enjoyment.

It is a captivating story, with its challenges and discoveries, that gives youth organization its soul.

I think we can say at Foyer that we more or less know how you arrive at the creation of a sports club in the social field. You do this by finding suitable people, a supporting force. But he/she is not alone… Around that, you have to be able to create a leading, carrying team, and then you have to find your first loyal members. Loyal members are those who come to training sessions every week. For football, this is not a problem. That is so popular that you can easily find 20 members in a week. In athletics, it is already more difficult… And then you build further: it has to come to involvement of members in managing the club, getting some to grow in your own club from some to become assistant coaches, increasing parental involvement, and so on. Thus, it comes to identification with the club and commitment to the club. And at such a time, the club can become corporatised, live its own autonomous life. This is how Atlemo got there and this is how Rebels Molenbeek basketball club for girls got there.

Why am I describing this? I hope my text may inspire some people and that people learn to respect this kind of commitment.

I think we can say at Foyer that we more or less know how you arrive at the creation of a sports club in the social field. You do this by finding suitable people, a coach, and a supporting force. But he/she is not alone… Around that, you have to be able to create a leading, carrying team, and then you have to find your first loyal members. Loyal members are those who come to training sessions every week. For football, this is not a problem. That is so popular that you can easily find 20 members in a week. In athletics, it is already more difficult… And then you build further: it has to come to involvement of members in managing the club, getting some to grow in your own club from some to become assistant coaches, increasing parental involvement, and so on. Thus, it comes to identification with the club and commitment to the club. And at such a time, the club can become corporatised, live its own autonomous life. This is how Atlemo got there and this is how Rebels Molenbeek basketball club for girls got there.

Why am I describing this? I hope my text may inspire some people and that people learn to respect this kind of commitment.

“The psyche of the masses and the psyche of a child show very similar reactions. You really cannot imagine the ideas that feed the masses and set them in motion as childish enough. Real ideas, in order to become historical forces that set the masses in motion, generally have to be simplified first to the level of a child’s capacity to understand. And a silly delusion, shaped in the heads of children during ten years and hammered into them for four years, may very well make its way into politics twenty years later as a deadly serious ‘world view’.” (pp. 23-24).

I take the above quote from Sebastian Haffner’s book, The Story of a German 1914-1933. (2000, going back to an original, then unpublished manuscript from 1939).

We must ask ourselves whether again these are not processes that have been going on for several years and that help to explain the success, close to us, of movements such as ‘Schild en Vriend’ and the like, and that are now also at play in Russia, for example, to make many people there so uncritical of what is going on in Ukraine.