A couple of weeks ago I was in Frankfurt – together with professors Joseph Brincat, Henry Frendo and Joe Friggieri – as a guest of the central banks of Malta and Europe. We were there to discuss key aspects of Maltese identity with our well-heeled audience of around 300 people, although the public conversation rapidly came to focus on Malta’s experience of irregular migration.

Our German audience was clearly concerned about the long-term consequences of the recent massive influx of refugees into their country. Despite the initial international commentary praising German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s decision to signal to Syrian refugees that they would be welcome in Germany, her initiative has not been popular with key segments of her grassroots vote.

The unpopularity is partly because Merkel is seen to have botched what should have been a purely humanitarian appeal to Syrians. She ended up encouraging a cascade of refugees from other countries not just Syria, to the resentment of her European counterparts.

But behind the criticism of the mishandling of the refugee crisis lies another: a strong sense that refugees will be difficult to integrate; that multicultural policies in Germany have already failed. After all, it was Merkel herself who, in 2010, under pressure from her own voters, officially pronounced multiculturalism a failure.

Germany is not the only European country in which multicultural policies are unpopular. Such policies have been implemented in top-down fashion and not in response to popular demand.

Nor is Merkel the only European leader who has felt pressured to criticise multiculturalism. In 2011, a year after Merkel, David Cameron felt he had to follow suit, suggesting integration policies had failed. In Europe generally, ‘multiculturalism’ as a term may well be beyond redemption.

A closer look at European policies and their consequences, however, reveals a puzzle. European leaders may be changing their tune about multiculturalism, however, (studies show) the facts on the ground are different.

Multicultural policies have not impeded socio-economic integration; at least not with the first-generation migrants studied. Nor, despite the impression of a retreating multiculturalism, have governments really been replacing previously existing multicultural policies with something else. Instead, they have tended to add civic integration policies (essentially, policies stressing education around core constitutional values) on top of existing policies.

In other words, there’s a gap between popular perception and political rhetoric, on the one hand, and how things actually work, on the other. One result, as we know, is the rise of far-right groups across Europe, including in the Netherlands and Scandinavia, countries that have long prided themselves on their record of tolerance.

It’s a bit glib, however, to blame the unpopularity of multicultural policies simply on ordinary people not knowing how things really work and on opportunist politicians. There are a number of things that have gone wrong in Europe and which should be placed at the door of the policy entrepreneurs and the policy makers.

First, many advocates of multicultural policies – including Unesco, for a while – have urged the policies while pointing to the US, Australia and Canada (among other countries). The fact is that Europe is irreducibly different.

It was Angela Merkel herself who, in 2010, under pressure from her own voters, officially pronounced multiculturalism a failure

In the US, Australia and Canada, multicultural integration went hand-in-hand with nation-building. One could not proceed without the other. In Europe, nation-building came first, with the formation of the welfare-state being a core aspect of the national covenant.

In Europe, multicultural policies are being pursued at a time when a partial separation between State and nation is underway. The nation-state is in crisis because the post-war welfare covenant is unravelling. Social solidarity seems an empty word. Many politicians seem unable to stand for anything, unable to communicate a compelling national narrative.

In these circumstances, it can appear that immigration and multiculturalism are to blame for the unravelling. In fact, the powerful drivers are other factors. But any recommendations for Europe that are based simply on the socio-economic experience of an immigrant-built country like the US are bound to ring hollow.

Second, European states have committed serious mistakes. The mistake was not the attempt to integrate migrants per se but in the specific policies pursued, which ended up creating serious problems.

For example, many Germans find difficulty with the fact that many Turkish immigrants pursue German civil rights while continuing to identify, in some strong sense, with Turkey. I have lost count of the times that a German has resentfully told me about the time that Tayyip Erdogan, then prime minister of Turkey, held a mass rally in Germany with posters advertising the event in Turkish.

However, this situation was to a certain extent a creation of how, for a long time, Germany treated Turkish immigrants as ‘guest workers’ – inherently temporary, with citizenship constructed as based on ‘German blood’.

Germany is not alone. Each European country has committed identifiable policy mistakes, usually with the best of intentions, but always with the consequence that policies designed to integrate migrants ended up helping to create a ghetto.

One frequent mistake has been the European misunderstanding of culture itself. Policies have sometimes targeted the wrong object. Religion isn’t always the key shaper of cultural identity.

The experience of war or economic collapse can be more important – a salient point if we’re discussing the integration of migrants seeking asylum from war and destruction of the social fabric.

If Malta is going to learn from Europe’s multicultural failures, then we need to keep at least three issues in mind.

First, multiculturalism hasn’t failed. It hasn’t been an enemy of socio-economic integration. But it has had important failings, usually specific to each country.

Second, if we’re going to ask immigrants to sign up to some core civic values and compelling Maltese narrative, then we need to be clear about what these are.

You just cannot ask people to be loyal to something hazy.

I personally don’t see how such a project of civic loyalty can be successful without a parallel project for native-born Maltese themselves. We cannot ask people to be loyal to ideals that we ourselves disrespect.

Third, multicultural education cannot be on trivial matters. It’s easy to organise a party with food and music from around the globe. But that’s not multicultural education. That is just a pot-luck dinner with awkward music.

Real multicultural education is about exploring global connections between my personal history and yours. It’s not about nodding enthusiastically about each other’s values. It’s about how to criticise both sets of values. It’s also about how to come up with new values that make us all better citizens.

ranierfsadni@europe.com