Roshan Muhammed Salih is 5Pillars editor. You can follow him on Twitter @RMSalih
Roshan Muhammed Salih says that Sadiq Khan’s pro-Israel rhetoric during his London mayoral campaign has alienated so many Muslims that he doesn’t deserve the community’s backing in tomorrow’s election.
If the polls are to be believed Sadiq Khan will be elected London mayor tomorrow by a comfortable margin. I know that opinion polls have been wrong in the past but Khan’s lead seems so large that it would take an upset of gigantic proportions for his Conservative rival Zac Goldsmith to beat him to City Hall.
Under normal circumstances this should be a cause for celebration for the capital’s one million Muslims. After all, a person of colour who practices the Islamic faith is about to take control of one of the world’s major cities.
Surely that means that the Islamophobia that we are subjected to on a daily basis will be addressed? Surely that means that someone in a position of power will finally lend us a sympathetic ear? Surely that sends a signal to the rest of the world that Muslims can make it to the highest office in the UK?
Well, if it does mean all of those things why aren’t Muslims getting excited about Khan’s impending coronation?
Pro-Israel rhetoric
Subscribe to our newsletter and stay updated on the latest news and updates from around the Muslim world!
The truth is that Sadiq Khan has made it very difficult for Muslims to vote for him during this campaign.
As any Muslim would tell you, support for the Palestinian cause is at the heart of our political and religious identity; yet Khan has come out against the BDS boycott movement against the Apartheid entity of Israel, and has even said he would hold a Tel Aviv festival in London!
Khan has also said there is a “question to be asked” about Muslim women who wear the hijab and niqab, an egregious attack on some of the most disenfranchised people in British society.
And he’s played the usual card of trying to appear to be “tough on terrorism” by pledging to tackle extremism and radicalization. On the face of it that’s not a bad thing, but he never says anything about how British foreign policy and state and media Islamophobia feed into that radicalization process.
Some people have suggested to me that Khan’s campaign rhetoric can simply be dismissed as someone who’s just trying to get elected. There are two issues with this: first of all, the election of Jeremy Corbyn last year proves that voters admire people with convictions and principles, not flip-floppers; and secondly, Khan’s record in office under New Labour (during which time foreign wars were prosecuted and the Prevent strategy was launched) proves that he’s no Muslim hero.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that a Khan victory would be a disaster for Muslims, I’m just saying that he hasn’t done enough to deserve our vote. And by voting for him we would simply be cementing the Establishment consensus and would be sending a message out that no matter what a candidate says about us there’s no electoral price for them to pay.
Zac Goldsmith
Perhaps the most convincing argument for backing Khan is the assumption that if we don’t Zac Godlsmith would get in, but even this argument betrays a misunderstanding of the voting system.
Goldsmith’s campaign for mayor has indeed been repulsive. He could have chosen to challenge Khan over real issues – like the housing crisis, crime or transport – but instead he’s concentrated on Khan’s religion and alleging that he’s a friend and apologist for “Muslim extremists.”
The truth is that Khan is a mainstream Labour politician who’s dedicated his career to advocating centrist views, yet Goldsmith’s campaign has pumped out a constant barrage of propaganda portraying him as the pawn of sinister “Islamist” forces.
So yes, it would be a disaster if Goldsmith got in; but fortunately because of the voting system (which requires Londoners to rank their first two preferred candidates) there is a way around this.
If Muslim Londoners who want to vote against Goldsmith but don’t want to completely endorse Khan put the Labour man as their second preferred candidate then they wouldn’t be helping Goldsmith in any conceivable way.
And then they could give their first preference to someone more deserving of the Muslim vote – like George Galloway or Sian Berry – thus reducing the winner’s majority and building an anti-Establishment movement for the future.
And when their votes are re-distributed in the second round run-off between Goldsmith and Khan, their votes would go to Khan.
The choice
So Muslim Londoners are faced with the following choice tomorrow:
- Don’t vote at all. Turnout is expected to be low at around 35% so this could be perceived as an effective protest against the current system, or it could be perceived as an act which renders Muslims powerless.
- Vote for the two progressive candidates (George Galloway or Sian Berry).
- Vote for Khan for pragmatic “lesser of the two evils” reasons.
- Vote for a progressive candidate (Galloway or Berry) as first choice but put Khan down as a second preference to ensure Goldsmith doesn’t get in.
On balance, the fourth option seems the most sensible to me.
