AMT
Contemplates Post-Election Scenarios
By
Lisette Poole-- CA
No matter who wins
on November 2, American Muslims and Arabs are
firmly embarked on the road of political involvement,
visibility and contribution to the national debate,
even as they continue their struggle against the
erosion of their civil liberties.
This is the result
of a yearlong, consistent, relentless effort to
mobilize the community through town hall meetings,
conventions, and voter education workshops across
the 50 states. The build up, through the American
Muslim Taskforce (AMT), an umbrella group of ten
organizations, has given a voice, a face and a
presence to the community, on a national level.
AMT was launched in December 2003 to remedy the
treatment of Muslims and Arabs as second-class
citizens.
“In 2000,
we had placed the Muslim vote on the political
map. Now we are re-affirming the same electoral
prowess so that every one could recognize that
our voice has legitimacy,” said Dr. Shabbir
Safdar, commenting on the decision by the AMT
to give a “qualified” endorsement
to presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry.
The following ideographs
have emerged from my conversations with the AMT
Chair Dr. Agha Saeed and the AMT board member
Dr. Shabbir Safdar who have been contemplating
various outcomes of the 2004 elections and preparing
to deal with different eventualities.
According to these
leaders, implicated in these scenarios are a number
of vital interests: 1) life-time appointments
of federal judges, including the US supreme court,
2) some possibility of universal health coverage,
3) a somewhat better share for the working and
middle classes in the budget prioritization, and
4) a remote but attractive possibility of improved
relations with the rest of the world, especially
the Muslim world. Partial restoration of civil
liberties and human rights also hang in the balance.
On the eve of a
“cliff hanger” election, no serious
analyst can avoid anticipating two relatively
distinct outcomes. Each lends itself to be painted
as a different scenario. The first, characterized
by a Bush victory, will mean a swing further to
the right, institutionalizing the power and the
access of the evangelical Christian groups, who
are out to convert the rest of the world. It could
further blur the lines between church and state,
exacerbate the ideological, ethnic and religious
divisions within the country, and add to the existing
intimidation and harassment of religious and ethnic
minorities.
Depending on the
magnitude of his victory and the perceived mandate,
the second term Bush administration could move
in either a reformist or a confrontational direction.
A reformist approach
would presume significant changes in the cabinet,
demotion of the neocons, relatively better economic
package for the middle class, sui juris move towards
‘no child left behind’, and little
or no difference in the present treatment of ethnic
and religious minorities.
On the global level,
the reformist attitude would be reflected in a
limited, behind-the-scenes, accommodation with
the international community to retrieve the US
from the quicksand of Iraq and Afghanistan. This
approach could entail outsourcing Afghanistan
to the British (without excluding other European
powers) and Iraq partly to NATO and the European
Union. This US controlled semi-internationalization
will embolden the Bush administration to seek
greater fiscal burden-sharing from Saudi Arabia,
Kuwait and other oil producing Middle Eastern
countries and military units from Pakistan, Egypt
and Bangladesh. It will also demand reduction
in price of oil and further preferential treatment
for US companies.
The confrontational
scenario, premised on a landslide victory, would
on the other hand, lead to considerable inflexibility
at home and abroad. It would mean at least a vigorous
attempt to get the USA PATRIOT Act II passed and
further crackdown on Muslims and Arabs, making
it literally impossible for them to have any meaningful
presence in American society. The immediate effect
of such a move would be to completely exclude
them from any participation in the discussion
on foreign or domestic policies. The Bush administration
could still appoint a few handpicked Muslims or
Arabs to minor positions but use them to justify
further liquidation of the organized community
life.
On a global level,
this could mean further expansion of the war into
Iran and/or Syria as the Bush administration continues
to supplant its failures with increased use of
force and brutality. It may also concurrently
impose sanctions on many Middle Eastern countries
to coerce them into compliance while giving a
free hand to Israel for arbitrary and brutal actions
in occupied Palestinian territories and elsewhere
in the region. This confrontational scenario could
easily spill over into demands for comprehensive
changes in socio-religious make up of the Muslim
societies triggering widespread unrest and resistance.
Under a Kerry administration,
there would also be two scenarios, depending partly
on the magnitude of his victory and his mandate.
A small margin of
victory, combined with the Republican control
of the Congress would practically oblige the nascent
Kerry administration to steer a course parallel
to the Bush administration in many areas, including
Iraq. One might even see an increase in the deployment
of soldiers and use of lethal force to snuff out
the popular insurgency and to hasten the process
of “total” victory. Having painted
himself as a better warrior and commander than
Bush, Kerry has generated massive expectations
of military follow-through. Most likely, he would
also maintain the present policy of blanket support
for Israeli aggression and defiance.
His vulnerabilities
on the issue of national security may force him
to be tougher, at least in the short run, in both
domestic and foreign arenas. He could keep the
intrusive components of the PATRIOT Act in place
while making minor concessions on provisions pertaining
to libraries and searches without warrants. He
would however, try to balance these manifestly
illiberal measures with distributive economic
policies, giving the middle class a slightly larger
share of the pie. He is quite likely to have a
decent position on education and health care.
On the other hand,
a Kerry administration may choose to bring an
early end to the war in Iraq, seek negotiated
accommodations with Iran and North Korea as a
means to stamp out nuclear proliferation.
Under this scenario
he may revive the Carter-Clinton commitment to
at least make the effort to keep the Middle East
peace process alive, straddling between trying
to be an honest broker and Israel’s staunchest
ally at the same time.
Under the best case
scenario, Kerry may be able to patch up with Europe,
open a dialogue with the Muslim world and restore
the sovereignty of Iraq over the next few years.
Kerry will have
to answer his own questions, posed during the
first presidential debate: 1) Is this a war against
terrorism or Islam? And 2) Is this a war of occupation
or liberation? His answers to his own questions
will define his administration.
Regardless of who
wins, the American Muslims will have to continue
to deal with four crucial factors, at least in
the short run: 1) the USA PATRIOT Act, 2) nature,
duration and direction of war, 3) the economy,
and 4) US relationship with the Muslim world.
Consequently, Muslim
Americans will have little choice but to engage
in the political debate to assure that their side
of the story is heard loud and clear. The main
elements of the agenda will be 1) coalition building,
2) public debate, 3) capacity-formation, i.e.
gaining greater skills and knowledge to influence
the working of the political machinery, 4) continued
negotiations with various sectors of the society
and political establishment, 5) media outreach,
and 6) continued education, organization and mobilization
of the community.
That is exactly
what the leadership of AMT is preparing itself
for the Muslim community to do. “The next
shift”, says Dr. Saeed, “begins on
Nov 3.”
(Lisette B. Poole,
a freelance journalist based in the San Francisco
Bay area, also lecturers at CSUH)
