American
Muslims Give "Qualified Endorsement " For John Kerry
By Shaik Ubaid
23 October, 2004
Countercurrents.org
The
"qualified endorsement " of John Kerry by The American Muslim
Task Force may not be a giant leap but it is a big step in the right
direction. The decision of AMT, which comprises a majority of national
Muslim organizations, in itself is not as important as its having initiated
a democratic process within the community that could result in such
a decision.
The process of reaching
a consensus is a difficult and tedious one. The difficulties are multiplied
many times when consensus building is undertaken by an alliance of diverse
groups. American Muslims are the most diverse segment of Muslim community
anywhere in the world. The AMT has on the one hand, among its constituents,
African-American Muslims with their distinct history and political perspective
as well as a national youth organization inclined towards activism and
on the other it has immigrant groups that are relatively conservative
in their political outlook. The immigrants come from diverse backgrounds;
some are from politically active cultures while others have grown up
in countries where political activism means a knock on the door in the
middle of the night.
The AMT decision falls short of my highest expectations but I am pleased
because I know the historic importance of embarking on this journey
of alliance building. I have been studying closely the formation of
such an alliance by the various Muslims communities of India. This alliance
was further able to reach an understanding with other religious minorities,
secular groups and lower caste Hindus and work effectively to ensure
that the Hindutva-fascist party in India did not return to power in
the last parliamentary elections earlier this year. Muslims in India
have a long history of negotiating electoral politics so they were astute
not to allow the main secular party the Congress to take their votes
for granted. They therefore voted for regional parties in some states.
This ensured the Hindutva partys defeat while at the same time
forced the new Congress government to remain dependent on its allies.
I also have intimate
knowledge of the problems that confronted the formation of the first
national alliance of the American Muslims, the Islamic Shura Council
in the early 90s. More recently, the successful attempt by Indian Muslim
Council-USA (www.imc-usa.org) to forge an alliance with different religious
communities, secular groups and human rights organizations to counter
the growing power of Hindutva-fascists in the US has convinced me that
the alliance building process is not one to be taken lightly.
The American Muslim
community in general and Muslims with past practical experience of alliance
building in particular heaved a sigh of relief when a unanimous decision
was reached by the AMT.
Reaching decisions
through consensus building in an alliance means the constituent groups
have to sacrifice some of their stands and interests. Such a process
is bound to leave some groups more dissatisfied than others. What is
crucial is that once a decision is reached the constituent groups abide
by it enthusiastically.
The process of consensus
building is a giant step forward for the Muslim community in the US
which is a relative newcomer to American politics. To its credit it
is learning fast and evolving even faster. The decision of Muslim immigrant
groups by and large to endorse Mr. Bush during the last elections had
resulted in a gulf between the immigrant and the indigenous Muslim communities.
Activists among the immigrant communities were of the view that the
decision to support the Republican candidate was rushed.
This year there
is no such divide among the major Muslim organizations and communities.
AMT, having conducted many a town hall meetings across the country,
has not only received input from the local communities but has also
succeeded in creating in them a sense of involvement. Somewhere the
final decision reflects the desire within the community to cast a protest
ballot against Mr. Bush thereby making AMT appear representative rather
than dictatorial.
The learning process
for the constituents of the AMT continued through the final meeting.
When a disgruntled representative of one of the groups leaked the "tilt"
towards non-endorsement as the final decision his organization apologized.
Another affiliate organization that has chosen to remain independent
rushed to break the news of "non-endorsement".
When the final decision of "qualified endorsement" of Kerry
was announced in the closed AMT meeting which did not include affiliate
members the affiliate insisted on including a "dissenting"
decision in the announcement. In deference to the spirit of alliance
however it exercised discretion and refrained from announcing its dissenting
view during AMT's press conference and announced its position separately.
All these maneuverings are a natural part of the learning and alliance
building processes. The affiliate organization must have realized that
it would not be allowed by the full members to have the cake and eat
it as well. It is hoped that it will be influencing future AMT decisions
as a full member of the coalition.
Criticism of the
decision is coming from diverse quarters. In the case of some organizations
the disagreement is one of principle and in others it is about projecting
a certain media profile. The reasons behind individual criticism of
the decision also vary from genuine difference of opinion to personal
ambition and a belief that an unattached status enhances chances of
administrative appointments. These realities are in no way detrimental
to the larger cause of American Muslims. The American Muslim community
is not a monolithic community and any attempt to camouflage its inherent
differences will make for inaccurate representation.
Independent experts
on the American political system and electoral process like Khalid Azam
have been pushing for a state by state endorsement. They were keen that
in states where the election results are a forgone conclusion Muslims
vote for a third party to strengthen their hand and to safeguard against
being taken for granted by the Democrats. This would have been a better
decision by far but unrealistic to attempt given the time constraints
and the inadequacy of AMT grassroots structure.
The job of AMT is
not over. Its next responsibility is to urge local Muslim communities
to embark upon concerted efforts to ensure maximum voter turnout. Immediately
after this it will have to commence planning for the 2006 Congressional
and 2008 Presidential elections.
I will take the
liberty of advising the AMT to focus on three major areas in its midterm
planning:
A Strengthening
the structure
It should aim at
developing a sound structure and with well thought out by-laws at all
levels: national, state and county.
B Broadening
the base
It should embark
on broadening its base by involving nationality and ethnicity based
groups such as the Arab Americans, The Pakistani Americans, the Bangladeshi
Americans, The Indian Muslim Americans, the Turkish Americans, etc.
It will serve the
AMT well to take into account that several traditional Muslim groups
are wary of getting involved in the political process of a pluralist
society. AMT should arrange nationwide speaking tours by intellectuals,
Islamic scholars and political leaders from countries such as India
and UK, where Muslims have had longer experience in dealing with such
issues.
C. Reaching out
The AMT must make
it a part of its agenda to reach out to other immigrant communities,
minority groups, civil rights organizations etc. and form an even larger
coalition for Civil rights and Social Justice.
In the future the
Task Force must try to endorse candidates at a state level and base
the endorsement on the candidates' positions rather than their party
affiliations. It must make more effective use of the mass media to keep
the community well informed. It should time its actions strategically
and hold its cards close and reveal neither too much nor too late.
In the ultimate
analysis unless American Muslims are seen as caring human beings participating
in the betterment of America and American society, as our religion enjoins
us to do they will remain permanently engaged in the uphill battle against
fear-mongering by Muslim bashers. Fear-mongering cannot be defeated
through law suits and electoral politics. It can only be defeated by
winning the other battle for hearts and minds through education and
selfless service to the community we live in
Dr. Shaik Ubaid
is the president of Indian Muslim Council-USA, an advocacy group that
promotes pluralism in India and the US.