While such examples may be exceptional, the broader issue of how to win votes in a pluralistic society is one that all parties must address.
With this in mind, Quilliam published its latest report, Skin-deep democracy: How race, religion and ethnicity continue to affect Westminster politics. Based on interviews with 70 MPs, PPCs and party members, it shows how all three parties have at times tried to create (and exploit) religious and ethnic ‘bloc votes’, rather than engaging with voters as individuals.
To do this, some party activists have manipulated controversial and divisive issues that have a specific appeal to certain ethnic or religious groups. In other instances, they have brokered deals with ‘community gatekeepers’, such as the leaders of south Asian biradari clans or religious clerics of various persuasions, in return for their followers’ collective vote.
This kind of ‘engagement’ prevents citizens from being treated as individuals and instead addresses them only as members of an ethnic or religious group. This ‘take me to your leader’ attitude is an unwelcome echo of the dark days of colonialism when imperialists saw ‘the natives’ as a seething undifferentiated mass who could only be approached indirectly through self-appointed ‘leaders’.
Such tactics would have little purchase, among British Muslims at least, if Islamist groups and individuals were not so busy jockeying for ‘leadership’ roles by claiming to speak on behalf of Britain’s 1.6 million Muslims. All too often, the previous Labour government went along with this, uncritically accepting the Muslim Council of Britain’s claim to be the sole national interlocutor for British Muslims.
However, such backroom arrangements sidelined the majority of British Muslims who suddenly found themselves cut out of the democratic process. Despite democratically voting for MPs and local councillors to represent them, they suddenly found themselves ‘represented’ by the MCB, which claimed to speak for ‘the Muslim community’.
But the MCB did not speak for ‘the Muslim community’. Although poll after poll showed that British Muslims cared about the same issues as everyone else – jobs, employment, housing, and even immigration – the MCB told the government that ‘the Muslim community’ was principally concerned with ‘Islamic banking’, the Arab-Israeli conflict and the provision of separate services and schools for Muslims.
Labour needs to learn from its mistakes. Rather than engaging with Muslim voters as members of a presumably homogenous religious bloc, Labour must recognise that Britain’s Muslim citizens are, like all other citizens, individuals with a multitude of identities and political concerns. Just as politicians would disregard Nick Griffin’s claim to be the voice of the white working class, so should they disregard Islamist claims to represent British Muslims.
exactly what a lot of us thought when it was the Imam who turned up to represent for the Moroccans who were being encouraged to move out of Wornington Green (K&C London) so it could be redeveloped (half for private sale natch.) I mean I’m sure he’s a nice man and everything but there were no others there and it was a packed audience of other residents.
Totally agree but suspect that unfortunately their will be some who will say you can’t say that. Be interesting to see what the outcome of the meeting is.
You know, I wonder if a similar article would be published with unsubstantiated claims about other faith groups? Would the Hindu Forum be accused of being BJP front group? Or would the Board of Deputies be accused of being a simply concerned with Israel issues? And would such groups would equally be singled out and attacked for being the ‘sole national interlocutor’ of their own communities? What proof does this man have that the MCB is ‘Islamist’? and what proof does he have that the MCB has acted or wanted to act as the sole interlocutor of the Muslim community? You might want to read what the MCB itself has to say: http://www.mcb.org.uk/faq/faq.php#12 This is all about gatekeeper politics. It isn’t about sole interlocutors as much as ‘compliant interlocutors’ Let’s not forget how former Labour government ministers and advisers (Paul Richards, some correspondents to this website, tried their hand at establishing and patronising rival Muslim bodies. Remember the Sufi Muslim Council? Whatever happened to them. For a more accurate description of the British Muslim community, see this: http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2010/12/01/the-civil-war-among-muslims-in-britain/
can you explain why islamism is defined, perpetrated and propagated by advocates of neo conservatism in the main? maybe if we recognised that islamism is wholly a western neo con ideology that is worked upon by the same few think tanks, individuals for their political gain and personal greed and to exercise some power that feeds into the collective anti islam anti muslim sentiment and bigotry. it is the stupidity of claiming islam = terrorism rather than recognising (for political reason) political grievance = terrorism. why tackle the political grievance when one can blame muslims and islam through the underlying sentiments that are in effect akin to racism. why even discuss political grievance when it will show there to be some very real issues for which we are responsible and accountable.