We can’t coerce our way to social cohesion. Here’s what else governments should be doing

Last week, Queensland followed the New South Wales and federal parliaments by passing stronger hate crime laws in response to the Bondi terror attack.

The Queensland laws target two specific phrases – an approach that risks the laws being struck down as unconstitutional. Two protesters were arrested on Wednesday – the day the laws came into effect.

The NSW laws strengthened criminal offences and clamped down on protest rights. The federal laws trigger possible prison time for anyone connected with a banned hate group.

According to the governments introducing them, these laws will not only make our communities safer, they will also enhance our social cohesion. In introducing the national laws, Attorney-General Michelle Rowland said “the passage of this bill will give us hope that Australia will continue to be a place of tolerance and that our diversity can be displayed with pride”.

Since the Bondi attack, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has called for “social cohesion” at least 35 times. Former opposition leader Sussan Ley invoked the phrase nearly as much. The words are used by politicians and commentators across the political spectrum to justify everything from banning Swastikas to halting migration.

Can we really create more cohesive societies by banning everything we deem to be not cohesive? Has social cohesion become just another buzzword, or can governments still achieve it through meaningful reform?

What is social cohesion, anyway?

There is no single, agreed definition, but social cohesion typically includes various markers of a “good society”. This includes high levels of:

• trust, both in government and each other

• social mobility: the capacity to change one’s position in society, either economically, socially or through improved health and education

• economic equality, including perceptions of economic fairness and opportunity

• and participation in democratic and community processes.

A socially cohesive society is one in which people feel a sense of belonging, worth and connectedness. Different groups feel accepted as part of the same overall community.

As political scientists Nicholas Biddle and Matthew Gray write, many definitions of social cohesion emphasise “positive social relationships”. This means:

not simply the absence of conflict, but the presence of social bonds and shared norms that enable cooperation within a nation or some other community.

Protecting social cohesion, but not building it

Understood in this way, social cohesion cannot be achieved through laws that ban hate speech, symbols or other criminal behaviour. These laws might reduce some threats to social cohesion or deficits in it, but they do little to boost positive markers.

The laws might improve some perceptions of trust and inclusion. If governments are seen to be taking decisive action, targeted groups may feel safer to participate in society and there may be stronger national consensus on democratic norms.

But their coercive, problematic nature risks undermining the very goals they aim to achieve. Anti-democratic laws that clamp down on free speech and are rushed through parliament without proper scrutiny are not markers of a healthy democracy.

It’s also important to remember that threats to social cohesion go far beyond hate crime and extremism. These are only part of a much bigger picture. Socioeconomic segregation, political polarisation, environmental hazards, misinformation and regional/rural inequalities all strain Australia’s current wellbeing.

Read more: With its new laws, the government is tackling hate speech quickly, but not properly

What else should governments be doing?

These laws are not the only government initiatives for improving social cohesion, but they take up airtime at the expense of longer-term efforts to improve markers of a good society.

Substantial long-term investment in localised, place-based approaches is crucial. For these efforts to have real impact, we need to know more about what works to improve social cohesion, both locally and nationally.

New and revitalised government programs must be supported by investments in research that monitors cohesion across different levels of society. We need to understand more about how social cohesion can best be measured and which factors influence it to the greatest degree.

These programs need recurring funding, monitoring and evaluation. Piecemeal or one-off community grants are not enough.

Governments should target several priority areas. One is economic inequality and insecurity. Grievances arising from a sense of relative deprivation – that others in society have more than us, and we can’t get what we deserve – fuel discontent and violence.

We also need to improve belonging and connectedness. That could be through hosting cultural and multi-faith events, reinvigorating local clubs and institutions, or any similar strategies that connect people across diverse social, economic and religious groups. These approaches could also address loneliness and social isolation.

Then there’s enhancing democratic participation. One way to do this is through local council and citizen forums that allow for robust deliberation and decision-making.

Increasing opportunities for young people in housing, health, employment and education is key.

And strengthening civics education, especially in schools, would ensure future generations have the best chance of contributing to a healthy democracy.

Social cohesion is not something we can say as a society we have ever finally achieved. It is a social process that emerges from policies and programs, information flows and everyday interactions. It’s a social good that requires intentional investment from all levels of society. And it can always be improved.

Coercive laws targeting threats to social cohesion can be one part of an overall strategy, provided they do not undermine other investments. The focus, always, should be on making our communities better places to live while improving our democratic health.