Multiculturalism Has Failed: Why We Need a Multi-Ethnic Policy Now
Why Multiculturalism Must Be Replaced by a Cohesive Multi-Ethnic Policy
Multiculturalism started with good intentions. It was a noble idea. It aimed for a society where everyone could celebrate their heritage and still live in peace. But this vision was deeply flawed.
The policy prioritised protecting group identities. This came at the expense of our shared national values and individual civic duty. This approach has created a system that undermines the very social harmony it was meant to protect. It also opens the door to charges of hypocrisy.
It is time to admit that this policy has failed. It failed by creating “protected groups.” This shields certain practices and behaviours from fair, public criticism.
To manage diverse migration today, countries like the UK must end the “multicultural” experiment. We need a grounded multi-ethnic policy. This policy celebrates individual origin. But crucially, it puts the shared, non-negotiable rule of law above all cultural differences.
Why Idealism Crumbles When It Meets UK Law
The main problem with multiculturalism is its idealistic core. An aspiration is a hopeful goal. It is not a legal fact.
By trying to stop all “judgement” or “disadvantage” based on identity, the policy sets an impossible standard. It cannot be maintained in the real world of a free, liberal state.
A state built on human rights and liberty must judge other systems. It must reject any practice, no matter its cultural source, that violates the basic rights of its citizens. These rights include freedom, equality, and dignity.
When multiculturalism insists on “equal respect for all cultures,” it causes a policy clash. It tries to apply non-discrimination (for individuals) to an entire culture (a set of ideas and rules).
This creates cultural relativism. The state finds itself unable to say that its own civic norms are better than practices it knows are harmful or illegal.
The Practical Multi-Ethnic Model
The multi-ethnic model is purely practical. It simply accepts that the nation has many ethnic origins. That is a fact, not a policy goal.
Its response is not to fund or promote these differences. Instead, it insists that all individuals must follow one single, dominant civic culture: the rule of law.
This removes the clash. The state is just enforcing its legal limits. It is not trying to force social harmony through state funding for separate groups.
This conflict is not just a theory. It impacts the daily enforcement of our laws and social justice. The moment the state values cultural sensitivity over legal clarity, it creates loopholes. Incompatible practices are allowed to continue. This causes real division and unfairness. The idealism of multiculturalism becomes a heavy burden on the host nation’s legal system.
Group Identity vs. Individual Responsibility
The most damaging flaw in multiculturalism is its shift in focus. It moved from the individual to the group identity as a source of political power.
In the post-war era, integration was focused on the individual. Slurs like “Pommy” or “Wog” were social friction. But the goal was always the migrant’s successful integration. The individual had to prove their loyalty, hard work, and contribution.
The slurs faded once the individual showed their value to the nation. Accountability was personal. The individual was judged on their behaviour.
Multiculturalism changed this. It legally backed group identity. These groups needed special protection and, often, funding. This created Identity Politics. The main political unit became the collective, not the citizen.
The Group Shield
When the group is the focus, the state loses its power to enforce universal standards. If a person from a “protected group” breaks UK law, criticism is immediately pushed away from the individual act. It is redirected towards the criticism of the group.
The Four-Step Accusation Tool:
- Individual X engages in Practice Y (e.g., bigamy).
- Citizen Z criticises Practice Y.
- Because Practice Y is linked to Group G (a protected identity), the criticism is instantly called an attack on Group G.
- The criticism is then redefined as racism or phobia (e.g., Islamophobia). This effectively silences Citizen Z.
This tool gives certain groups practical freedom from fair scrutiny. In a multi-ethnic policy, the individual is solely responsible. In a multicultural one, the group is shielded. Public debate dies under the threat of accusation.
This policy was designed to include. Instead, it weaponises identity to stop criticism. Focusing on group rights fatally weakens the foundation of universal individual responsibility that a strong liberal society needs.
Image Prompt: An image showing a legal court setting, but with a sign over the judge’s bench saying ‘Group Identity Override’, where a legal document is being weighed against a large, symbolic shield, include Image SEO. Alt Text: Group Identity Shielding Individual Legal Accountability Title: The Political Shield of Group Identity Caption: By making identity groups the focus of policy, accountability for individual behavior is sacrificed, resulting in a state of ‘sanctuary cultures’ shielded from civic critique. Description: A courtroom scene with a symbolic shield covering the scales of justice, suggesting a group identity policy overriding legal due process. Extended description: This visual metaphor highlights how institutionalising group identity as the primary policy unit can lead to individuals escaping accountability for illegal or harmful actions by hiding behind the shield of group protection.
The Legal Hypocrisy: Why We Fund What We Ban
The issue of polygamy (called bigamy in UK law) is a clear example of the policy’s failure and legal hypocrisy. (Fact Check 1: Bigamy is illegal in the UK under the Offences against the Person Act 1861 and subsequent legislation.)
UK law is clear: Bigamy is illegal.
Yet, the state’s focus on humanitarian aid and anti-poverty measures creates a support structure. This structure effectively subsidises the results of this illegal practice. (Fact Check 2: Non-recognised spouses in polygamous marriages may still be eligible for certain social benefits based on financial need, not marital status.)
The problem starts when men who were legally polygamous overseas come to the UK. They sponsor one legal spouse. But a second, non-recognised ‘wife’ and her children often live here too. The government’s social services then face a clear conflict:
The Conflict: Law vs. Compassion
- Option 1: Uphold the Law. Deny the second ‘wife’ all support based on her non-recognised marriage. This punishes her and her children, creating deep poverty.
- Option 2: Uphold Humanitarianism. Give the second ‘wife’ support (like single parent payments) because she is a financially needy resident with dependent children.
The government rightly chooses Option 2. It is based on human compassion and the rights of the child.
But the public perception—and the financial reality—is that the UK taxpayer is funding a lifestyle and family structure that its own laws consider a crime. The policy is legally monogamous but financially polygamous.
This is the essence of the state’s hypocrisy. It criminalises the practice, but financially supports its consequences.
A multi-ethnic policy would demand strict legal compliance. It would provide humanitarian support, but never in a way that makes the illegal relationship seem legitimate. The current system fails because it lets the non-compliant family structure be imported and maintained under the shield of cultural protection. The policy fails because it puts anti-poverty measures above legal consistency. This weakens the supremacy of the rule of law. It creates resentment and the feeling that the government allows UK law to be ignored in the name of compassion.
How Accusations Kill Open Public Debate
Another serious problem with modern multiculturalism is the way accusations of “racism” or “phobia” are used. They are weapons to stop necessary civic discussion.
In the 1960s, the slurs were part of a rough, but ultimately successful, integration process. The social expectation was that people would integrate. They would contribute. Their success would neutralise the power of the slur. The slurs were just friction on the way to unity.
Multiculturalism has made identity sacred and the criticism of identity forbidden. It has made discrimination the worst social evil. This gives people a powerful tool to silence any criticism of a protected group’s practices.
If a citizen questions low inter-group marriage rates, religious teachings on gender, or opposition to secular values, they are immediately labelled: Islamophobe, racist, intolerant.
This is not about protecting individuals from hate. It is about protecting ideas and practices from critique. The accusation changes the whole focus of the debate. It moves away from the practice’s incompatibility with British values. It focuses instead on the moral flaw of the person making the criticism.
This silencing effect is a huge danger to liberal democracy. A democracy must be free to criticise all ideas—religious, political, and cultural. This must happen without fear of serious professional or social damage. When criticising a group’s actions leads to an immediate career-threatening label, public debate stops dead.
A multi-ethnic policy, focused on the individual, removes this shield. It lets the citizen say: “I criticise your action because it breaks my civic standard.” The issue is not instantly made about race or religion. The individual succeeds or fails by their actions, not the collective identity they hide behind. This puts accountability back where it belongs: on the individual citizen under the rule of law.
The Value of Tough Integration for Cohesion
The successful integration after 1945 offers a crucial lesson that multiculturalism has ignored. Even terms of derision, like “Chocos” for the 39th Battalion, could be turned into a badge of pride. This happened through shared national contribution and sacrifice. (Fact Check 3: The term ‘Chocolate Soldiers’ or ‘Chocos’ was used for the 39th Battalion during WWII and later reclaimed as a badge of honour.)
The key was not state-enforced sensitivity. It was shared experience and performance. Migrants were expected to perform as citizens: work hard, contribute, serve the nation, and obey the law.
In return, they earned acceptance. The slurs lost their power because the individual had proven their worth to the collective nation.
Multiculturalism replaced this hard, earned acceptance with a soft, state-backed acceptance. It demands that the host culture immediately validates the new identity. This removes the need for the migrant to prove their value to the collective.
This creates an unstable situation. The new group feels entitled to recognition without fully committing to the nation’s civic norms. The host society feels forced to accept something it does not trust. This leads to friction and resentment, which is now labelled “racism.”
The multi-ethnic approach restores the principles of reciprocity and contribution. It says: “We respect your origin and your human rights. But your main political identity is British. The only culture we fund or promote is the civic culture of democracy, law, and the shared English language.”
By ending the state’s financial and ideological support for separate cultures, a multi-ethnic policy forces people to interact and contribute. These are the real tools for long-term social cohesion. The friction that happens is no longer seen as a failure of anti-discrimination laws. It is seen as the natural, sometimes difficult, process of individual integration into a shared civic space.
Moving Forward: Embracing Multi-Ethnic Civic Nationalism
Multiculturalism’s failure comes from an internal clash. It tries to achieve equality for everyone by making group differences official. The answer is not to go back to past racial policies. It is to move to a modern, strong multi-ethnic civic nationalism.
This necessary policy shift has three core parts:
1. The Supreme Rule of UK Law:
British law is non-negotiable. No cultural or religious practice—like bigamy, gender discrimination, or rejecting secular values—can be tolerated or funded just because it is a cultural practice. The law must be enforced uniformly, without exception.
2. Individual Accountability:
Policy must focus on the individual citizen. The state must stop funding or protecting “group identity” programme. This removes the shield of accusation. It forces individuals to respect the common law. The state’s concern is the citizen’s conduct, not their ethnic origin.
3. Active Integration:
We must replace passive “co-existence” with active integration. This means strong funding for shared institutions and the teaching of a shared history. It means making English language fluency and knowledge of British democratic values absolute requirements for citizenship. The goal is a common national story that all individuals, regardless of their origin, can buy into and own.
A multi-ethnic approach knows that citizens will always come from many lands. It celebrates the richness they bring. But it insists that the rules of the house are singular and non-negotiable. It moves beyond the idealistic failings of multiculturalism. It embraces the practical needs of creating a united society under the absolute and equal authority of the rule of law. Only by ending the policy of identity protection can nations build the strong, resilient unity needed for the 21st century.
Fact-Checking and Sources
The following claims made in the article have been verified against legal and historical sources:
- Source 1: Bigamy Prohibition in UK Law
- URL:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/24-25/100/section/57/enacted - Verifies that bigamy is a criminal offence in the UK under Section 57 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.
- URL:
- Source 2: Social Services and Non-Recognised Marriages
- URL:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7f27f5e5274a2e8ab4a755/submission-to-sos-091106.pdf - A historical submission to the DWP that details how income-related benefits provide for certain polygamous marriages (contracted abroad where legal) by paying the difference between the single and couple rates, acknowledging the policy conflict.
- URL:
- Source 3: The ‘Chocolate Soldiers’ (Chocos) Historical Context
- URL:
https://aso.gov.au/titles/tv/australians-at-war/clip1/ - Confirms the historical use of the derisive ‘Chocolate Soldiers’ nickname for the poorly-trained Militia forces (CMF) who showed extraordinary fortitude on the Kokoda Track, leading to the term being reclaimed as a badge of honour.
- URL: