Ministry of Education of the Republic of Azerbaijan Baku International Multiculturalism Centre Azerbaijani Multiculturalism Textbook for Higher Education

Identity Indicators and their Associations and the World Values Survey

This final part uses data from the World Values Survey to analyse identities and their associations and attempts to show their role in multicultural policy.

80

The data we have used comes from a project that has been under way for several years now and involves 76 countries. One aim of the project is to find out the geographical groups to which its respondents (citizens of these countries) affiliate themselves. Respondents could identify themselves through affiliation to one of three groups: ‘local’ (community, region, ethnic), ‘country’ (national civil) and ‘global’ (common civilizational).

The question was formulated as follows: ‘To which of these geographical groups do you belong – to a local group (community), to a country or to the world (globe)?’ The researchers confirmed that in many countries people refer to multiple identities. Multiple identities may lead to clashes or tensions, but it is clear from the analysis that multiple identities can be an impetus for national associations based on an understanding of the new, social unanimity as the integration of the diversity of its cultural components.

By placing the survey’s findings in increasing order from ‘country’ to ‘global’ identities, and in decreasing order to ‘community’ identity, interesting conclusions can be drawn.

Overall, in 38 of 76 countries the level of ‘community’ (local) identity is below the average of 49%. The high level (above 50%) of ‘community’ identity in Western European countries can be explained by two factors. First, membership of the European Union as a confederative institution probably allows the citizens of EU countries to give the advantage to local (ethnic) identity. Second, the problems related to ‘the failure of multicultural policy’ seem to have boosted the choice of local (ethnic) identity in those countries; it should also be remembered that the West European states have reached their present stage through ethnic concentration. In developed multicultural countries such as Switzerland, the USA and Canada ‘community’ identity remains quite high, though a little low (38%, 38% and 39% respectively). For the sake of comparison, we should say that this indicator

Section II

Chapter 3

81

Azerbaijani Multiculturalism

82

for Azerbaijan is one of the lowest in the world – 24%, while in Armenia it is 38%.

This is the first evidence of multicultural development in Azerbaijan.

In 35 out of 76 countries ‘country’ (civic-national) identity is higher than the average of 41%, whereas in 15 countries ‘country’ identity is 55% or higher. For the sake of comparison, in multicultural countries such as Canada, the USA and Switzerland this indicator is 46%, 40% and 41% respectively, while in Azerbaijan it is 55%, the highest figure among the CIS countries. In Armenia it is 51%.

This is further evidence of multicultural development in Azerbaijan.

The indicators of ‘community’ and ‘country’ identities in Azerbaijan and Armenia (24%, 55% and 38%, 51% respectively) show that the multicultural tendency in Azerbaijan is stronger than in Armenia. It is in Azerbaijan that significant integration has been achieved with the recognition and protection of local identity.

In 33 of the 76 countries the figure for ‘global’ identity is higher than the average of 8%. Only in five countries is this global identity above 20%, including 21% in Switzerland and 22% in the USA.

When both ‘country’ and ‘global’ identity are high, this shows that the administration of the country is pursuing a multicultural policy, undertaking to meet common civilizational commitments that have been agreed with the population of the country. Azerbaijan is a clear example of this, which is further proof of the country’s multiculturalism.

Further proof of the development of multicultural traditions in Azerbaijan is the low ‘community’ identity indicator (24%) and high ‘country’ identity (55%). This is confirmed by further analysis of identities.

Seventeen of the countries studied have ‘community’ identity indicators below the medium level, and higher ‘country’ and

‘global’ indicators; i.e. this meets three criteria applicable to the study of multicultural traditions. The countries include Azerbaijan, Australia, Mexico, the Netherlands, Turkey, South Africa, Georgia and Uruguay.

Analysing these figures from the point of view of the comparative proportion of identities in the ‘country – community’ system and the differences between their ratings, it becomes clear that the countries with the corresponding indicators have the biggest ratings: Azerbaijan (2, 29; +31), Uruguay (2, 14; +32), Uganda (1, 88; +28), New Zealand (1, 84; +27) and Georgia (1, 83; +26).

Similar analysis of the ‘country-global’ system shows that in terms of the comparative proportion of identities and the differences between their ratings, the following countries have the lowest ratings: Mexico (2;33; +24), Azerbaijan (2, 62; +34), Canada (3, 07; +31); Venezuela (3, 50; 35).

Comparison of these two tables shows that Azerbaijan is the only country to have leading indicators and to be found in both lists (it shares first and second place with Uruguay in proportion and difference in ‘country-community’ association and with Mexico in ‘country-global’ association). Azerbaijan has the leading and the most balanced figures. This analysis of the comparative proportion of identities is further confirmation of the results obtained earlier concerning the successful multicultural traditions of Azerbaijan through comparison of absolute and average global indicators.