Difficult goal of social cohesion

Compared to the other recommendations to emerge from the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Terrorist Attack on Christchurch Mosques, a goal of greater social cohesion might seem both amorphous and hard to achieve.

In fact, as the report says, social cohesion, inclusion and diversity were not even in the original outline. But as the inquiry went on, and engagement with communities grew, it became obvious that they needed to be considered.

As the report says: ‘‘Societies that are polarised around political, social, cultural, environmental, economic, ethnic or religious differences will more likely see radicalising ideologies develop and flourish. Efforts to build social cohesion, inclusion and diversity can contribute to preventing or countering extremism.’’

This seems obvious to the point of being self-evident. But how is social cohesion created? Whose responsibility is it?

The report is clear that social cohesion is not assimilation or homogeneity. Using a definition from Professor Paul Spoonley and others, the report says a socially cohesive society is one in which all individuals and groups feel a sense of belonging, inclusion, participation, recognition and legitimacy.

Yet our attempts to reach this cohesive society have been beset by failures, as the report shows. Even as New Zealand enjoyed high levels of immigration and became increasingly multicultural, politicians rarely talked about the benefits of ethnic and religious diversity or social cohesion. Discussion was concerned instead with the economic benefits and consequences of immigration and migrant labour.

At a bureaucratic level, the Office of Ethnic Communities was widely agreed to have underperformed in the years before the mosque attacks. It was reviewed and restructured twice.

Strategies were lacking. There was no public sector agency that co-ordinated the overall policy approach or the work programme relating to social cohesion. It was hard to see where the gaps were. A decentralised approach led to a kind of confusion and inertia.

The report describes a depressing timeline of failed efforts and inaction. A Social Cohesion Working Group was formed in 2016, made an unsuccessful Budget bid for $23 million over four years to support awork programme and was disbanded a year later.

Another group was created after former race relations commissioner Dame Susan Devoy raised the concerns of the Muslim community, leading to a pilot programme in Waikato ‘‘despite feedback from Muslim community leaders that the project was not needed for the Waikato region’’. This group was also disbanded.

It took the shock of the March 15 terror attack to drive real progress in this area but even then, as the report says, ‘‘Cabinet papers on social inclusion were prepared without any engagement with communities, civil society, local government or the private sector. Only the Human Rights Commission had some involvement.’’

After the 2020 election, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern created a new role of minister for diversity, inclusion and ethnic communities.

Some will argue that successful social cohesion strategies would not have stopped a terrorist who acted as a lone wolf and was inspired by imported white supremacist ideologies.

But as the report successfully argues, social cohesion creates a climate in which such extremism and hatred is less able to flourish. The challenge is that it needs to be the responsibility of everyone who lives in New Zealand, not just those whom the majority describes as ethnic communities.

The report is clear that social cohesion is not assimilation or homogeneity.