The issue, or rather non-issue of discrimination and the power of Multiculturalism is an issue of the game that people often bring up as a complaint. I have spent some time thinking about this aspect of the game and thought that with @lachek 's recent acknowledgement of it being a problem the dev team is looking into, I'd write a post outlining my ideas.
What are the problems with Multiculturalism? I see four that are all important:
To resolve these conflicts, I think it makes sense to review what Discrimination actually does in the game:
One important thing that I realised is that some of these effects are based on political/institutional discrimination while others are based on interpersonal/socio-economic discrimination. I think it's worthwhile to draw a distinction between these two forms of discrimination because the law that decides who is being discriminated is named "Citizenship". From that perspective it makes a lot of sense that the government can control who is politically/institutionally discriminated based on its recognition of citizenship status. But simply granting citizenship by itself does nothing to stop interpersonal/socio-economic discrimination. In fact, this is an aspect of life that governments have very little control over.
Instead of the current two-tier status of Accepted/Discriminated I therefore propose a three-tiered status of: Accepted > Recognised > Discriminated.
Accepted pops for now are only pops of a primary culture. They have no penalties, as before. I think the game should offer ways for significant recognised cultures to become primary cultures, but I would like to leave that aspect out of the scope of this post.
Recognised pops are those that are not Accepted but covered by your current citizenship law (i.e. those that would have become Accepted under the current rules). They should get the following penalties:
In addition to this, it is a problem that the presence of discriminated pops only makes discriminated pops angry (i.e. radical). When in reality the presence of discriminated pops also leads to racism/chauvinism on the part of the accepted population. I think that needs to be reflected in the game for this mechanic to make sense. My proposal is:
The reactionary/restrictive path closes the door on eventually assimilating discriminated pops. Instead it reduces the negatives suffered by accepted pops (who are also having all the political power). It also keeps the option of using the cheaper labour of discriminated pops to cut down costs. This makes this path a bit more attractive than it is currently, even though ultimately still inferior to the inclusionary approach.
Finally, with this I think the following changes to laws should be made:
What are the problems with Multiculturalism? I see four that are all important:
- Multiculturalism is too powerful: Once Multiculturalism has passed, you do not have to worry about culture and discrimination ever again. You can get as much immigration as you can generate, and conquer as much as you can manage, and all the new pops will be just as fine as primary culture pops.
- Multiculturalism is too easy to pass: It's supported by the Intelligentsia, which is not too difficult to get to sufficient clout and maneuver into government. Moreover, it is only opposed by the Devout and by the Petite Bourgeoisie, which usually are not very powerful IGs at most stages of the game. Landowners, the usual powerful inhibitor of progressive change, are indifferent to this law. Other extremely progressive/leftist laws like Council Republic or Women's Suffrage by comparison are supported by no IG and require an event chain or lucky leader trait roll to even be an option.
- Strange relationship between Acceptance and Assimilation: Non-accepted pops will not assimilate into the primary culture. But with accepted pops, there is no difference to the primary culture, so you no longer care whether they assimilate or not.
- Multiculturalism is ahistorical: There has not been a single polity in the timeframe of the game that can be accurately described as multicultural. Even the United States, the archetypical immigrant nation, evidently still experienced pronounced discrimination of parts of its population. The idea of multiculturalism really only started being discussed in the second half of the 20th century. I don't think even today any society can be described as multicultural in the way that the game defines it - as there being no difference in treatment and discrimination across all population groups.
To resolve these conflicts, I think it makes sense to review what Discrimination actually does in the game:
This is what Vickypedia says. One thing it does not mention explicitly is that discrimination is also taken into account by the Migration Controls law. (Also I am intrigued by the "get paid less than their peers" aspect - is that documented anywhere in greater detail?)
One important thing that I realised is that some of these effects are based on political/institutional discrimination while others are based on interpersonal/socio-economic discrimination. I think it's worthwhile to draw a distinction between these two forms of discrimination because the law that decides who is being discriminated is named "Citizenship". From that perspective it makes a lot of sense that the government can control who is politically/institutionally discriminated based on its recognition of citizenship status. But simply granting citizenship by itself does nothing to stop interpersonal/socio-economic discrimination. In fact, this is an aspect of life that governments have very little control over.
Instead of the current two-tier status of Accepted/Discriminated I therefore propose a three-tiered status of: Accepted > Recognised > Discriminated.
Accepted pops for now are only pops of a primary culture. They have no penalties, as before. I think the game should offer ways for significant recognised cultures to become primary cultures, but I would like to leave that aspect out of the scope of this post.
Recognised pops are those that are not Accepted but covered by your current citizenship law (i.e. those that would have become Accepted under the current rules). They should get the following penalties:
- Get paid less than their peers
- Have less political strength, but more than Discriminated pops (the scaling could also depend on the specific Citizenship law)
- Are less likely to develop Qualifications
- Even less political strength
- Naturally become radical over time
- More likely to emigrate
- Will not assimilate
- Do not receive access to benefits from Institutions, like pops in non-incorporated states*
In addition to this, it is a problem that the presence of discriminated pops only makes discriminated pops angry (i.e. radical). When in reality the presence of discriminated pops also leads to racism/chauvinism on the part of the accepted population. I think that needs to be reflected in the game for this mechanic to make sense. My proposal is:
- Radicalism from losing your employment and/or ownership shares for accepted pops is increased based on the percentage of non-accepted pops in the state (e.g. if 20% of the population is non-accepted, employment loss produces +20% more radicalism). Job loss is only one angle of resentment but imo the best to use as a gameplay shorthand.
- The most restrictive Citizenship laws get a reduction on this radicalism modifier. For example, Ethnostate could give no radicalism from losing jobs to discriminated pops.
- Even better, these laws should guarantee that accepted pops are always hired first and fired last. I don't know if that is possible to implement and communicate though.
The reactionary/restrictive path closes the door on eventually assimilating discriminated pops. Instead it reduces the negatives suffered by accepted pops (who are also having all the political power). It also keeps the option of using the cheaper labour of discriminated pops to cut down costs. This makes this path a bit more attractive than it is currently, even though ultimately still inferior to the inclusionary approach.
Finally, with this I think the following changes to laws should be made:
- Ethnostate: accepted pops are always preferred for employment, no increased radicalism for accepted pops based on the presence of non-accepted pops
- National Supremacy and Racial Segregation: -50% increased radicalism for accepted pops based on the presence of non-accepted pops
- Cultural Exclusion renamed to National Identity: this is just a personal pet peeve but I find the name "Cultural Exclusion" not very evocative, and it's the only one that doesn't really describe an underlying principle. The idea of National Identity as something more constructed around cultural similarities rather than ancestry suits the effects of this law well, in my opinion.
- Multiculturalism renamed to Civic Nationhood: this is the American idea that a country's identity should be based around its civic institutions and adherence to certain civil rights norms, rather than an individual's culture and ancestry (or religion). It works well with the Recognised status, but more importantly it is actually befitting the time period and does not carry all the anachronistic baggage that Multiculturalism does. Despite this I don't think any interest group should have this as a default ideologically supported civic and it should only be available through leader ideologies and event chains.
- Melting Pot (Citizenship): like Civic Nationhood, but with an additional +100% assimilation rate. Should also be leader/event gated.
- Regional Autonomy (Citizenship): like National Identity/Cultural Exclusion but in addition all pops whose culture shares an ancestry trait with a primary culture are considered recognised if they reside in a cultural homeland state. This could be seen as a way to implement Austro-Hungarian pluralism, and what had been attempted for the Russian Empire. Should probably also be event gated.
- Worker's Protections (Labor Rights): could additionally reduce the wage/qualification penalties for non-accepted pops
Last edited:
- 17
- 11
- 1
- 1
