Nazira Toktalieva: Hello from Central Eurasia! 

Kadar Asmal: It is the construction of our society on the basis of a shared vision of the future, rather than on any muthologizing of our past, that best guarantees a peaceful, just, multicultural society in which each is offered the best chance for flourishing and fulfillment. Multiculturalism is to be valued because a society in which each is able to demonstrate her difference and diversity equally is a society much more likely to encourage its members to see beyond signifiers of religion, race or ethnicity as the sole markers of identity.

Nan van der Storm (Manager CMO-Stimulans): The first thing we have to do is to agree on the concept of social cohesion. The most common definition of social cohesion refers to our wish that everybody can participate in our society, that in the neighbourhoods of a city people will know each other because they organise things together. The happy society, with reasonable tolerance and active citizens. And we conclude, with this definition, that at this moment this social cohesion leaves much to be desired. We don’t see – apart from some neighbourhoods – much of this kind of social cohesion. We at Stimulans are an organisation that advises on diversity of origin; we advise and support migrant groups and general institutions in order to realise extern social cohesion. And we don’t think it is just to say that social cohesion leaves much to be desired. In post-war Netherlands Catholics organised themselves in pillars, as well as Protestants and other religious groups. From the safety of these pillars we made it possible to build up the country, and it is said that social cohesion thrived in those days, because people organised themselves around a pillar. In the sixties these pillars gradually became less solid and disappeared. And, because of globalisation, the population became more diverse and contacts between people broadened. And still, as in post-war Netherlands, people look for company, understanding, family ties, etc.

Why don’t we see that? As I said: it is less obvious, less tangible, but it is there all right. Migrants organise themselves to a great extent. Instead of complaining when they ask to be facilitated for their ‘pillar’, we should realise that the formation of groups for migrants gives them the possibility to safely integrate in our society. If they organise themselves in groups, even if it’s just with people of the same origin, there is social cohesion and people will participate. An example is Rotterdam idea: A call to all inhabitants of Rotterdam to come with ideas to improve social cohesion. In two years time there were 1074 ideas of all sorts of inhabitants and groups. About 650 of them were approved of and are being implemented at the moment. It proves that people think about social cohesion and participate to a large extend.

I gave a very modest historic overview. We saw that social cohesion has different forms of appearance. And that is what will stay and will be our only security: a changing society, with changing forms of social cohesion. Not better, or worse, but different all the time. The negative approach of media that stigmatizes migrants leads to further segregation of groups of people and to exclusion. Policy makers and politicians should realise that and acknowledge that. And act accordingly.

Peckstadt Athenagoras: I’m always happy to present some initiative which was taken in my home country, in Brussels, and at which I take part as a representative of the Orthodox Church: ‘Hopeful Brussels’ . Hopeful Brussels is a meeting place of leaders from different religious and philosophical traditions, which was established on the belief that multiculturalism is a benefit for society rather than a cause for division. Indeed, approximately 45% of the Brussels population is of foreign origin. Moreover, natality is evolving in such a way that within a couple of decades Brussels will truly be a city comprised of minority groups. Each group has its own history, culture, religion, philosophy of life and view of the world. Migrant flows as well as secularization processes forced the religious monopoly which in the past was characteristic of our country and Europe to make way for religious and philosophical pluralism, producing a radical change in the relations between the Christian faith tradition and other religions and philosophies of life.

We always want to underline the unique character of every religion and culture, and considering cultural and religious diversity to be an important feature of human society. What we need to do is strongly to promote inter-religious tolerance among younger generations to make them more devoted to dialogue and encourage them recognize universal values. 

Sergio Mario Belfor: I am Director of a national Dutch diversity instutite targeting young people between 15 and 35 years old. Experience with program, research and advice, participation and social inclusion programs.Influential leaders are connected to this institute based in Rotterdam (www.eenheidiskracht.nl)

Marcello Palazzi (Progressio):Engaging, mobilizing and challenging corporations to be actors of social cohesion over a 20-year period

María Sara Jijon: Since early youth I have always worked for the common understanding among people with different backgrounds and experience in my country, Ecuador. For 6 years, I worked at IDLO, and worked for the common understanding of legal operators from different continents. The truth is, the basic needs are the same, the creative solutions in different places around the Globe can be shared. Now, back in my country, I work for the common understanding the shared work among people with different ideas, ideologies, regions, races, etc. for a more democratic and fair society.