Muslim Leadership Crisis
in the Upcoming Elections
by Dr. Shahid Sheikh
About 4 million
Muslim-Americans are registered voters. National and local polls
consistently indicate that 60-70% of the registered voters favor
the Kerry/Edwards ticket over the incumbent Bush/Cheney ticket.
The choice of Kerry has
emerged not because Muslims believe Kerry will ensure their civil
rights nor are they blind to Kerry’s unstinting support for the
Bush’s imperialistic agenda in Iraq and Afghanistan and the
Sharon’s nefarious occupation, apartheid, and genocide agenda in
Palestine. In fact, Kerry’s Senate voting record has earned him a
100% rating from pro-Israel lobbyists. It is getting extremely
difficult to distinguish both Republicans and Democrats and their
representatives, Bush and Kerry, on issues relating to Muslims.
Both, for instance, have a perfervid penchant for using strong-arm
tactics backed by firepower to resolve complex economic and
political problems around the globe. Had Muslims any doubts about
Kerry’s stance on these issues, they were promptly dispelled by
the first 2004 presidential debate between Bush and Kerry on
September 30, 2004.
Contemporaneously, militant
Muslims around the world will continue to respond to the American
and Israeli aggressions, oppressions and the violations of their
inviolable rights to self-rule. They will continue to successfully
employ the videos of the America’s frequent, unabashedly
celebrated “Shock and Awe” campaigns against unarmed innocent
Muslims as an important marketing tool in their newly energized
recruitment campaigns. No doubt, an unending cycle of violence and
destruction is most likely to reign in the world in the
foreseeable future. Innocent people around the world and in
particular Muslims in the Middle East, Pakistan and Afghanistan
will continue to be the main fodder of this mutual animus between
American leadership and the militant elements in the Muslim world.
So, why are the
Muslim-Americans casting their lot with a candidate whose
ideological stance about the Muslim-Americans and the Muslim world
is very similar to Bush’s? There are two major reasons: they are
angry at Bush and they do not have any other winning choice in
sight. Nader may be a favorite of some (about 10-12% Muslim votes
in the recent polls), but many consider voting for him means
wasting their valuable votes.
The American Muslim Taskforce (AMT), an umbrella group of 12
influential US Islamic organizations, has been formed to consult
Muslim electorate and to endorse a presidential candidate for the
Muslim bloc vote.
Only about 30-40 die-hard
activists, who happened to be mostly of Pakistani-- and some of
Bangladeshi origin, attended the last meeting of the AMA/AMT in
New York on August 31, 2004. This happened partly because outreach
was not actively extended into other ethnic communities and partly
because most Muslim New Yorkers do not have much taste for the
Muslim-American politics. The low turnout was exacerbated by the
fact that none of the AMT member organizations bothered to send a
representative. One should note that about one million Muslims
live in New York City. Only Dr. Agha Saeed was in attendance
partly because he was in the process of solidifying the New York
chapter of Muslim American Alliance.
This dismal outreach and
insignificant turnout leads to two important questions. First, is
the last AMT meeting in New York a good sample of the public
meetings conducted by the AMT across the nation? Second, is the
AMT really serious about input from the masses or will decisions
about the presidential candidate be made behind closed doors, as
was the case in the presidential elections of 2000?
In the 2000 presidential
election, Bush was endorsed for the bloc vote because he openly
reached out to the Muslim leadership as opposed to Gore who
arrogantly declined their formal invitation to a town hall meeting
of the presidential candidates. Being incensed by the Gore’s
public insult, Muslim leadership miserably fell prey to the Bush’s
deadly embrace and failed to conduct rigorous research on Bush’s
background, religious beliefs, political motivations and
aspirations. What ensued for the Muslim-Americans and the Islamic
world in the post-9/11 era under the oppressive policies of the
Bush Administration have proven that Muslim leadership misused the
public’s trust in their ability and wisdom, and thus, failed to
live up to its so-called “leadership” status.
In the current situation, Muslim leadership has also not conducted
a thorough research on Kerry’s past and his stance on issues dear
to Muslim-Americans. They do not have probable results of
competing scenarios about Kerry’s policies/actions/reactions given
a variety of simulated international and domestic situations and
crises like the tragedy of 9/11. They are as blind about Kerry’s
political and religious underpinnings, leanings, motivations and
aspirations as they were about President Bush’s in the last
presidential elections. In sum, the Muslim leaders do not have
anymore specific and confidential information about Kerry that
their constituents do not have. Given this dismal state of
leadership, their closed door “deliberations” about the candidates
are, in fact, nothing more than rehashing of the same old
information already available in the media.
Apparently, valuable lessons from the past presidential elections
have not sunk in the leadership. During the preceding four years,
they did not lay down the ground rules for future presidential
endorsements let alone for local and state ones. No wonder with
about four more weeks to go, they are as confused and lost about
the presidential choice as their constituents are beginning to be:
Nader is still under serious consideration as a viable candidate
as demonstrated by his invitation along with Bush and Kerry to the
CAIR’s 10th anniversary fundraiser on October 2nd in Washington,
D.C.
In sum, the Muslim leaders did not have a well-articulated
endorsement strategy in 2000 nor do they have now. By not
participating in the winnowing opportunities available during the
Democratic primaries, Muslims feel, add additional weight to this
conclusion.
Is the role of leadership to shape the public opinion about
issues, concerns, choices and candidates or vice versa? Is it
unrealistic to expect some difference of quality of information,
knowledge and wisdom between “leaders” and their “followers?”
Dr. Shahid Sheikh is the executive director of
the New York City-based American Educational Research Institute.
He can be reached at aeriusa@hotmail.com.
