The main challenge facing democracies in the post-Communist era is probably not so much the threat of totalitarianism as the consequences of pluralism, of the existence within these societies of a plurality of incompatible cultural allegiances. How are they to survive their fragmentation into communities many of whom no longer share the basic moral requirements of a democratic regime: recognition of the liberty of conscience, of equality of rights, and the like?

Two main theories seem to provide a solution, republicanism on the one hand, liberalism on the other hand, but they may seem out of touch with the present situation. Would, nevertheless, a historical and conceptual survey of these two different options be of any help in shedding some light on the issues involved? What is their understanding of diversity and could each have something to learn from the other? The aim of this paper is to show that these two responses are both still very much alive; that they are much more similar than one might suspect; and that an examination of them shows very clearly that the root of the problem lies in the content of citizenship and in the dignity attached to it, rather than in diversity as such.

I shall, therefore, (1) try and explain the main features of the typical French view on diversity and its recognition, and the way in which republicanism has provided resources for successful cultural integration.