Reflections of legal pluralism in multicultural settings

Throughout this paper we have provided some examples that illustrate how Western democracies are including in their regulations the reflections of legal pluralism referred to in our title. However, although our endeavour is not, nor can be, exhaustive, we are left with a feeling of fragmentation, a lack of systemisation, and perhaps some opportunism in legislators’ responses. We have also referred to hidden conflicts, invisible dances and invisibility in religious matters, and to Islamic institutions smuggled into the regulatory fabric of a defined country. Similarly, we might use the expression asymmetric pluralism, now coined in the doctrine, to refer, for example, to the way some institutions with origins in a particular confession are regulated, while other similar or identical institutions from different faiths sink into oblivion. To our mind, therefore, the States we refer to do show a certain pluralism, but through indirect channels, in the shadows, it might be said, in a very timid way and without a firm conviction. The adage “The best doctor, the sun; the best police, the light” could provide a guideline for action that would tackle the often difficult regulation of coexistence between majority and minority groups through open dialogue, internally within and among groups, a dialogue that would entail a corresponding transfer to the legislative sphere. The times we are witnessing now offer no margin for delay in achieving what has to be done; those of us living through these times increasingly remember another period that an eminently qualified voice denounced “with burning concern” – mit brennender Sorge. Such times should never have come to pass, and must never be allowed to return