ABSTRACT
On 8 March 2012, Queen Elizabeth II launched her Diamond Jubilee celebrations with a tour of the UK leading up to a national public holiday in early June. As a first destination, the Queen (or one of her advisers) chose Leicester, a medium-sized city of just under 330,000 people in the East Midlands of England. The choice, as media commentators at the time observed (Davies 2012), appeared calculated. Leicester is one of the most ethnically and religiously diverse areas outside of London, one of just three ‘plural cities’ in which no single ethnic group forms a majority (CoDE 2013). On the day, the royal party was greeted by a brass band, Sikh dhol drummers, a Zimbabwean women’s choir, Chinese dancers and a Hindu Holi festival dance performed during a service in Leicester Cathedral. The visit seemed have been designed not just to illustrate how Britain has changed since the Queen’s enthronement in 1952, but also to convey a message about the inclusiveness of present-day Britain. Although arguably little more than a feel-good celebration of ethnocultural
diversity – a good example of what has been called the ‘3S’ model of multiculturalism based on ‘saris, samosas, and steel drums’ (Alibhai-Brown in Kymlicka
Ethnic and Racial Studies, 2015 Vol. 38, No. 11, 1969-1985, https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2014.936891
Stephen H. Jones
(Received 6 November 2013; accepted 9 June 2014)
Focusing on Muslim participation in the governance of Leicester in the East Midlands of England, this article contests prevalent assumptions about the contemporary politics of multiculturalism. Specifically, it questions two narratives on the subject: first, a descriptive narrative about multiculturalism being in retreat; and second, a normative narrative about multiculturalism undermining national culture. Using interview, ethnographic and archival research, the article shows how a programme of multicultural politics has been implemented in Leicester that, while shifting, has remained firmly in place across national political and policy changes. It also demonstrates how this model of multicultural practice has emphasized civic communitarianism and utilized British national traditions. Using the above methods, the article questions the terms of political debate about multiculturalism, and considers how ‘convivial’ and ‘communitarian’ theoretical approaches to multiculturalism can renew and refashion multicultural political practice.
