After Conservative Party member Rishi Sunak, a politician of Indian descent, assumed the duty of prime minister in England, Hamza Yusuf, of Pakistani descent, became Scotland's first Muslim prime minister, pushing Great Britain's multicultural tradition to the agenda.

Apart from the relationship between the subunits of a complex political structure like Britain (England, Wales, Scotland), the relationship of various diaspora groups, whose numbers and influence in society have reached a serious level as of today, with Britishness is an issue that needs to be emphasized.

From about the 15th century until the present, the political construct that we now call the United Kingdom, which comprises England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, was envisioned as a structure that included numerous diverse ethnic and religious groups. While this was partly made feasible by the legitimacy provided by the dynasty's symbolic authority, the strong British liberalism feature supplied the multiculturalism that would, at least in theory, sustain this system.

Due to its colonial success, the U.K., which in the Middle Ages was not all that different from other monarchies nearby, grew to become the biggest empire the modern world has ever known. In actuality, a source of legitimacy with symbolic meaning was the only thing that could unify the diverse ethnic groups that make up British geography under a single supremacy.

While the U.S. now frequently uses highly contemporary (and abstract) phenomena like "democracy" or "freedom" to accomplish the same thing, in pre-modern times this phenomenon could only have been made feasible by a "sacred" component like "dynasty."

There is no denying the benefits of geography in this. The "security"-based paradigm, developed by English philosopher Thomas Hobbes in the 17th century, made maintaining power at home or in Britain, which they considered as their own domain, a key concern for the British. In fact, because of the sea that separates Britain from its prospective foes, the country has historically been more alert to internal threats than to external ones. It appeared out of character for a political system founded on law and democracy to turn its back on the situation when security was created in Britain following a deadly civil war, dynastic conflicts, and a time of unrest with beheaded rulers.

Colonial tradition

British colonialism, in contrast to its predecessors, was viewed as an example of a successful political undertaking because of things like its superior capacity for institutionalization and cooperation with local units. The Commonwealth discourse attempted to create the unifying supra-identity vision created by the U.K. in Britain on a global scale as the minor colonies formed in America, Africa and Asia over time matured into developed political units.

Similar to how Wales was considered a part of the U.K. and Canada or Australia as a part of the Commonwealth, it was essentially an example of an "invented tradition."

It followed that there will always be two-way population mobility between Britain and the colonies. In fact, Great Britain has always had a sizable immigrant population since the 16th century. Their status as part of the U.K. corporate brand has never been a significant issue because this unit is already sufficiently political. However, the 19th century brought about some novel and "dangerous" ideas. Both Britain and the rest of Europe have been impacted by racist and anti-Semitic discourse.

Non-white immigrants significantly increased in number in British society as a result of World War I. People from the colonies had numerous career options thanks in large part to the duty to sustain the old empire's army, which was dispersed throughout the globe. The societal unrest against immigrants was unexpectedly worsened by the post-World War II economic downturn. On the other hand, British governments struggled to create sufficient legislative and administrative frameworks to address this issue.

'Steady as she goes'

It is obvious that World War II announced the fall of the empire. In the ruins of the war between the "free world" and fascism, a new order was emerging, but it was based on two powers that stand for two new ideologies (socialism and capitalism), the U.S. and the USSR, rather than traditional powers like England or France.

For the U.K., this caused a painful period called the decolonization process. Necessarily giving up its political and military domination over its colonies, London tried to realize a cultural unity that it tried to establish with the symbolic value of its monarchy, at least, with the Commonwealth ideal. It was also a reservation for an indefinite period in the future to the dream of imperial domination that the U.K. was forced to give up.

On the other hand, the peak of people's movement from former colonies to the mainland occurred after decolonization. It wasn't only a matter of how the empire appeared to be crumbling. At the same time, administrations needed immigration from colonial countries due to economic factors such as a lack of internal power. After the British Citizenship Act was passed in 1948, 500,000 Commonwealth members who were non-White were considered to be U.K. citizens.

But when it became clear that the Commonwealth initiative would not benefit the U.K. in the near future, severe immigration regulations implemented by Conservative Party governments were reinstated. However, despite the enacted limits, cultural heterogeneity was frequently welcomed and promoted at home. As a result, despite all cultural differences, it was feasible to establish a multicultural tradition, at least in public life.

Old country, new clothes

Today's political leaders who are British immigrants can do so in large part for a number of reasons that can be traced back to the 2000s. Nearly all identities were damaged by the new wave of globalization, but "over-built" political constructs like Britishness were made even more fragile in the process. The Irish problem, which has been protracted without a resolution, the potential outcomes of the Scottish independence vote, and, most importantly, the Brexit issue, all have surface-level effects on the social structure and political crises that the U.K. must resolve.

Since the process of decolonization, the multiculturalism and cautious integration approach has frequently protected the standing of immigrants in British culture and given the country a fresh identity. Being British today means much more to someone with Pakistani or Indian ancestry than it does to an English or Scottish person. The system they were born into provides a form of belonging that would be welcomed rather than objected to for second or third-generation British immigrants.

The Yusuf and Sunak experiences were made possible by this altering conception of Britishness. The U.K. has provided an example of a very successful social structure that complies with the needs of the time, making the multicultural tradition one of the most significant supporters of supra-identity.