In a world where the boundaries between cultures and countries are becoming increasingly blurred thanks to phenomena such as globalization and mass immigration, we are starting to asking whether or not multiculturalism becomes an obstacle in modern democracies. Multiculturalism leads to the existence of different and sometimes opposing values ​​and interests among people living under the same nation and therefore leads to the possibility of political unrest. It is because of this assumption that some insist that democracies function best in culturally homogeneous societies. While it certainly poses some challenges to the democratic process, it does not completely undermine democracy. This essay will argue that multiculturalism represents an inevitable challenge to which democracies can adapt and overcome. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Contemporary democracies are meant to reflect people's desires, so ideally, every single individual should have the same desires based on their culture. Multiculturalism refers to “the presence and recognition or celebration of the well-being of ethno-cultural diversity” (Kymlicka). Different cultures have different values ​​and so the question becomes whether or not democracies are still reflecting values ​​when people no longer share a culture and are instead divided by diversity. In a postmodernist world, cultural diversity is as inevitable as immigration, so the question becomes “Is multiculturalism a challenge to democracy?” It depends on your perspective on what a nation is. According to an article published by Allison Jagger, a nation can be interpreted as both an ethnos and a demos. Multiculturalism is more likely to be perceived as a threat to individuals who think a nation is bound by a shared culture, history, and identity than to those who believe a nation is bound by those who “voluntarily constitute themselves as state by giving itself a democratic model". constitution” (Jaggar). Some, such as the French political philosopher Jean Jacques Rousseau, will argue for cultural homogeneity in a nation because the values, interests and goals of the people will be the same, therefore, the government chosen by the people will reflect the general will. In Rousseau's social contract theory, he believes that for people to maintain their freedom under political society is that “[they], since [they are] subject to the laws, should be the authors of them” (Rousseau 83). . Rousseau believes that people lose their freedom when they become dependent on a singular and particular will and therefore emphasizes the idea that government is legitimate only if laws reflect the will of a people as a whole or, better, the general will. Some of the preconditions he sets for the general will are that the people who share power in a political community must have common interests. To maintain this prerequisite, he also insists that society must also maintain a certain level of cultural homogeneity to have the same values ​​because this will lead to fundamental unity among people (Rousseau 88). In a multicultural society, common interests are difficult to establish as different cultures carry different values. In the same way that laws are enacted by the general will, the object of these laws must also be general; this means that there can be no special treatment among citizens. What Rousseau perceives as “the most important danger for social cohesion [is] when a particular will dominates over others and promulgates laws that do not reflect the different,.