(As originally published in The Student Journals - www.studentjournals.co.uk)
Is there really any space in our political climate, and in our
discourse, for those who vote in ways that don’t fuel the engine of the
two-party system? Voting for the Liberal Democrats doesn’t count; for a
vote for them seems to bolster the position of the Conservatives, partly
because that’s just one vote less for the Labour Party.
The recent victory of the Respect MP George Galloway in Bradford
appears to be a rather damning indictment, not just of the Labour
candidate who stood, but to the Government of today. Most commentators
seem to at least acknowledge that fact (to varying degrees), but I’m not
convinced that this will be taken seriously enough.
Now, before I proceed, I must admit that I am a supporter of the
Respect Party, so I cannot be entirely objective about the outcome of
the election this past week. Though I’m perhaps too cynical about
British politics today, I cannot hide my joy at Mr Galloway’s victory.
If you’d like to imagine me smiling whilst writing this, it might help
my cause!
That said, I am hopeful that the massive media interest surrounding
Respect’s victory in Bradford (and hopefully, success in the upcoming
local elections), will bring back to the public discourse the various
issues that seem to have, at least temporarily, given them a second
wind.
But competing for this space in the discourse will be tough, as
already various explanations have been offered for Respect’s victory.
The two which are the most interesting to me, and which seem to overlap,
are, firstly, that Mr Galloway won by courting the Muslim vote, and
secondly, that Respect won because they are a single-issue party
campaigned on that platform.
While these factors may have been important in securing Mr Galloway’s
resounding victory (and had it not been such a landslide we might
otherwise have played down their importance), the logic behind these
suggestions is rather worrying.
Firstly, had Respect courted the Muslim vote – leaving aside the
troubling assumption that all Muslims vote the same way – does it
delegitimise Mr Galloway’s Parliamentary mandate? Mehdi Hasan, for whom I
have much respect, does make the important point here
that Muslim voices are uncomfortably silent on issues relating to
domestic policy, although I think he underestimates the bustling civil
society in places such as Bradford, Birmingham and elsewhere.
Even if it was indeed true that the bulk of Mr Galloway’s votes came
from one particular demographic, is it not insulting to essentially
dismiss this surprise victory by claiming that it was ‘those Muslims’
who voted him in? I celebrate the large Muslim turnout at this election,
unlike those who prefer to take Galloway’s victory as evidence of “the ugly alliance between the far left and Islamists.”
As far as I remember, one Muslim’s vote was, at least in the past,
equal to the vote of any other member of the British public. Some people
seem to have forgotten this fact.
Moreover, if it was true that Galloway could have only won because of
the so-called ‘Muslim vote’, should we not then ask why this is? One of
the obvious conclusions might be the disillusionment ‘those Muslims’
feel with the major parties in Britain today, and their disastrous
foreign, economic, and social policies – undoubtedly important factors
in post-industrial cities like Bradford. Some may recognise this, but
not realise its importance because of obscene suggestions about Muslims
and how they vote.
But if we were to look at these people as more than Muslims, and view
them as people who have similar concerns to anyone else in our
communities, then perhaps it would be easier for people to process some
of the reasons behind this result. They may actually recognize that as
enfranchised members of the public, their legitimate grievances should
not be dismissed, regardless of their religion or who they voted for to
represent them. The discourse seems to strip away this community’s
dignity – and their right to vote against the tide is undermined by such
lazy stereotyping.
I don’t often play the race card, but I do think we need to whether
we are enmeshed in institutional racism, both in the reporting of
elections and discussions about the Muslim community (or indeed any
other ‘minority’ group). Even I am constrained by the discourse (and see
the contradiction), by recognising Muslims as a minority, implying that
they have special needs or wants. What I mean to say is that in the
democratic arena, we should see them as more than simply Muslims, and
afford them the same democratic dignity as we would anyone else.
Secondly, if indeed Mr Galloway won because of the ‘single-issue’
that Respect promote i.e. their anti-war stance – people will make the
essentialist argument that because our two ongoing conflicts pertain to
the ‘Islamic world’, Muslims will certainly vote against them. Does this
give our Government or the Opposition the mandate to whitewash that
issue and its implications? If indeed the anti-war sentiment is
important to the people of Bradford West, and by extension other cities,
then it ought to be addressed. It is not fair to those voters to
undermine their democratic right to vote for a policy, not a party, by
implying that their collective interests compromised by mandating a
particular policy.
The way this argument is framed allows the powers that be to
conveniently dismiss the anti-war sentiment which contributed to the
election of the Respect candidate. The prevailing discourse is that the
election of parties matters more than candidates. Here, our democracy
fails critically, because it gives rise to a lazy, non–reflexive
political discourse which simply perpetuates policies that the citizenry
might oppose, but can do nothing about because they are often duped
into voting for party over policy. But maybe, just maybe, not anymore.
