The Aspirational Failure of Multiculturalism: Why a Shift to Multi-Ethnic Policy is Essential
When policies are aspirational they often fail to mesh with the practical realities of a civic society’s legal framework.
Critique of Multiculturalism: A Call for Multi-Ethnic Cohesion
Multiculturalism, as implemented across the Western world, began as a noble aspiration: a society where everyone could celebrate their heritage while living in harmony. This vision, however, contains a structural tension. It prioritises the protection of group identities in ways that can conflict with the shared national values and civic responsibilities necessary for social cohesion.
It is time to acknowledge that, in practice, this aspirational policy has serious shortcomings. By institutionalising group categories, policy can inadvertently shield practices from legitimate civic criticism. To meet the challenges of contemporary migration and civic integration, nations like Australia should consider a grounded multi-ethnic policy — one which celebrates individual origin but places the rule of law and civic duties ahead of protected cultural groups and practices.
Citizens Bound by Law, Not Culture
A healthy multi-ethnic society defines citizens by civic responsibility and common legal standards, not by state-funded institutional support for group separation.
The Flaw in Aspiration: When Idealism Meets Legal Reality
The fundamental weakness of multiculturalism is its aspirational core. An aspiration is a desired state — not a legal fact. Policies that aim to eliminate all forms of “judgement” or “disadvantage” based on identity set a social standard that is extremely hard to maintain within the messy realities of liberal democracy.
A state built on human rights and individual liberty must judge and, where necessary, reject practices that violate fundamental rights — regardless of cultural origin. When multiculturalism insists on “equal concern and respect for all cultures,” it risks applying non-discrimination principles intended for individuals to entire cultural systems. That shift can edge policy towards cultural relativism and make asserting the supremacy of civic norms difficult.
The Multi-Ethnic Approach: Practical, Not Aspirational
The multi-ethnic model is descriptive rather than prescriptive: it recognises the factual diversity of origins and insists that all individuals conform to a single civic culture — the rule of law. It does not fund or promote separate maintenance of distinct cultural systems; it funds shared civic institutions that bind citizens together.
This distinction is practical. Enforcing legal clarity first avoids creating loopholes where incompatible practices can persist under the cover of cultural sensitivity.
The Destabilising Effect of Cultural Relativism
If “all cultures are equal” is allowed to override the supremacy of the rule of law, the foundations of the civic state are at risk.
The Core Contradiction: Individual vs Group Identity
One key shift has been from an individual model of membership to a group-identity model of political power. Post-war integration largely treated migrants as individuals who earned acceptance through contribution and commitment. By contrast, some modern policies and funding models emphasise group identity as a discrete political unit.
When policy focuses on groups, accountability can shift away from individuals. A practice that violates law by being associated with a protected group may see criticism reframed as an attack on that group, not as a critique of an individual action.
The Mechanism of Accusation
- Individual X engages in Practice Y (for example, bigamy).
- Citizen Z criticises Practice Y.
- Because Practice Y is associated with Group G (a protected identity), the criticism is framed as an attack on Group G.
- The criticism is then labelled racism or a phobia (for example, Islamophobia), which silences the critic.
This mechanism can create a protective shield around group practices and blunt civic scrutiny of individual behaviour.
The Legal Blind Spot: Bigamy, Polygamy and Social Support
Bigamy is a criminal offence under Australian law: see the Marriage Act 1961 (see section 94 on bigamy). In short: contracting a marriage while already married is unlawful in Australia.
At the same time, social security and parenting payments are assessed on carer status, residency and financial need rather than simply on the formal recognition of a marriage. Services Australia explains eligibility for Parenting Payment and related family payments; the Department’s Social Security Guide sets out the policy detail for principal carers and payability rules. These administrative arrangements can mean that individuals in non-recognised overseas relationships may still be eligible for certain payments when they meet the dependency or carer criteria.
That combination — criminal law prohibiting multiple concurrent marriages, and administrative rules that focus on the financial and care needs of children and carers — creates the perception (and in some cases the reality) of state-funded support to family arrangements that the Marriage Act would not recognise. This is the policy tension often described as legally monogamous but financially accommodating in practice.
Policy Consequences: Consistency vs Compassion
The policy dilemma is stark:
- Uphold the law: deny financial support when recognising it legitimises an illegal relationship — which can punish women and children.
- Uphold humanitarianism: provide support based on need and the rights of the child — which can appear to tolerate or indirectly support behaviour the law bans.
Many administrations prioritise the humanitarian choice to avoid destitution among children and dependent partners. That is an ethically defensible stance, but it produces the perception of inconsistency between criminal law and social policy.
The Silencing Effect: Accusations and the Death of Debate
One serious consequence of the current climate is that accusations of bigotry can be used tactically to shut down legitimate civic debate. In a liberal democracy, ideas — including religious or cultural practices — must be open to critique without automatic career-ending labels.
The Forgotten Path: How Rough Integration Forged Cohesion
The post-1945 experience shows how shared contribution could dissolve slurs and form a civic identity. For example, the 39th Battalion (sometimes called the “Chocolate Soldiers” or “Chocos”) served in New Guinea; historical sources document both the derisive nickname and its later reclamation after the battalion’s performance on Kokoda. See Australian War Memorial records on the 39th Battalion for primary historical material.
The point is not to endorse past intolerance, but to note that a shared sense of contribution and sacrifice made civic belonging concrete and mutual.
The Path Forward: Embracing Multi-Ethnic Civic Nationalism
The proposed policy shift is not a return to racial exclusion but a reorientation towards a civic nationalism that is inclusive of many origins while insisting on a single rulebook and shared responsibilities.
Three core policy components:
- Supremacy of civic law: reassert that Australian law is non-negotiable; cultural practices that breach core rights or criminal statutes must be addressed through the legal system.
- Individual accountability: shift focus away from group funding and towards individual conduct and responsibility within the law.
- Active integration: invest in shared institutions, teaching of national history, English fluency and civic education as part of citizenship and permanent residency programs.
A multi-ethnic policy celebrates individual origin but insists that the rules of the house are singular and non-negotiable.
Only by doubling down on the rule of law, individual accountability and active integration can we create the resilient unity required for the 21st century.
Fact-Checking & Primary Sources
- Marriage Act 1961 (Australia) — bigamy and recognition of overseas marriages — Federal Register of Legislation (current consolidation).
https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C1961A00012 - Bigamy (AustLII consolidated text) — Section 94 (bigamy) and related commentary.
https://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma196185/s94.html - Services Australia — Parenting Payment (eligibility & how payments are assessed).
https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/parenting-payment - Social Security Guide — Parenting Payment policy (Departmental policy guidance and definitions for principal carers).
https://guides.dss.gov.au/social-security-guide/1/1/p/51 - Recognition of overseas marriages — BDM / Smartraveller guidance (how overseas marriages are treated for recognition).
https://www.bdm.vic.gov.au/overseas-marriages
https://www.smartraveller.gov.au/before-you-go/activities/marriage - Australian War Memorial — 39th Battalion resources (historical references to the 39th Battalion and Kokoda).
https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/U56122
(See also Pacific War historical commentary on the “Chocos” and Kokoda.)