AMT
Endorsement Reflects Rapid Political Evolution
By Shaik Ubaid, MD--
US
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 and they were astute enough
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 party’s 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.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
