This important and much acclaimed book rapidly became a classic on first publication. In it, Bhikhu Parekh shows that the Western tradition of political philosophy has very limited theoretical resources to cope with cultural diversity. He then discusses how it can be revised and what new conceptual tools are needed. The core of the book addresses the important theoretical questions raised by contemporary multicultural society, especially the nature and limits of intercultural equality and fairness, national identity, citizenship, and cross-cultural political (...) discourse. The new second edition includes a substantial additional chapter addressing key issues. (shrink)

Political theorists tend to dismiss the concept of constitutional patriotism for two main reasons. On the one hand, constitutional patriotism — understood as a post-national, universalist form of democratic political allegiance — is rejected on account of its abstract quality. On the otherhand, it is argued that constitutional patriotism, while apprearing universalist, is in fact particular through and through. According to this genealogical critique, it is held that constitutional patriotism might have been appropriate in the context when it originated — (...) namely West Germany, a half-nation with a deeply compromised sense of nationality on account of the Nazi past — but it is not universally applicable. This article reconstructs the origins of constitutional patriotism arguing that both the ‘protective’ and state-centred patriotism of Dolf Sternberger, and the ‘purifying’ patriotism of Jurgen Habermas — focused mainly on the public sphere — can indeed be understood as relying on ‘supplements of particularily’. However, there are also normative connections between universalist constitutional morality and militant democracy on the one hand, and universalist constitutionalist morality and an imperative to remember on the other. Thus, the genealogical critique by itself is insufficient to invalidate the idea of constitutional patriotism. (shrink)

The ‘reinvention’ of nationhood in theory and the reform of British naturalization rules in praxis have been unable to address satisfactorily the issue of unjust exclusion and to make naturalization law and citizenship more compatible with democratic ideals. This has much to do with the fact that the discourse of new patriotism and the reconfiguration of national citizenship have inbuilt limits. In examining the ‘new’ discourse of patriotism in its various shades, I argue that it is inconsistent and unpersuasive. Neither (...) the rehabilitation of civic nationalism under ‘republican patriotism’, nor ‘constitutional patriotism’, nor ‘rooted patriotism’ succeed in transforming the nationality model of citizenship in order to render it more compatible with contemporary developments and with cultural pluralism. Similarly, the three models of citizenship developed by the literature, namely, postnational, transnational and multicultural citizenship remain rooted within the civic nationalist trajectory. Instead of arguing for the liberalization of naturalization requirements and the ensuing pluralization of citizenship, I put forward an argument as to how the nationality model of citizenship might be transcended by developing a model of civic registration. By contrasting this model with the Labour Government’s reforms in the fields of naturalization and citizenship, I argue that the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 places too much emphasis on social cohesion, thereby overlooking that a sense of belonging to community develops with inclusion in society and politics rather than as a result of citizenship ceremonies and language proficiency tests. (shrink)