M. A. Muqtedar Khan Ph.D.

For a PDF versions click here.

The American Muslim community has traveled far on the path of democratization [i]. This time in the year 2000 the community was still debating the Islamic permissibility of participation in the American political system. While Muslim political activists were expounding the virtues of voting – particularly block voting – the intellectuals were busy establishing the compatibility of Islam and democracy and convincing Muslims that it was not only in their interest to exercise their franchise but that it was also a good Islamic practice to participate in the Shura (the deliberations) that determined who and how this country was governed [ii].  Fortunately, this no longer appears to be an issue today.

Overwhelmingly, American Muslims recognize the validity of the democratic process and are eager to participate in it to shape the political environment in which they live [iii]. Recent surveys about political attitudes within the community have clearly indicated that American Muslims will participate quite vigorously in the coming Presidential elections and will also engage the political process at multiple levels. For example a recent study of Detroit Muslims showed that over 93% Muslims surveyed were determined to vote [iv]. A survey by the Washington DC based Council of American Islamic Relations found that 93% of its respondents were registered to vote; of them, 92% were determined to vote [v]. 

The present election has, however, raised another important debate within the Muslim community: whether American Muslims should formally endorse a candidate or not. The issue is a very important one; arguably, it is a constitutive issue and the manner in which it will ultimately be resolved will have a long-term impact on the identity, interests and politics of American Muslims [vi].

As elections approach, community leaders are confused over this issue. Many of them recognize that there are advantages to using the block vote as a political weapon, but they also recognize that picking the wrong candidate (if their choice is defeated) may backfire and further undermine the community’s interests. They are also wary of criticism from those who were opposed to their choice in 2000, and fear vocal rebellion from ordinary Muslims if they endorse a candidate without fully understanding the community’s orientation.

The issue of official endorsement essentially captures several key issues that are driving the community’s development and internal politics, the most important question of these being political unity: whether the community, in spite of ethnic and doctrinal diversity, sufficiently united politically to warrant a single endorsement. In the 2000 election cycle, African Americans were particularly upset that American Muslim organizations (i.e. those generally instituted by the immigrant majority) had endorsed the republican candidate without regard to their opinion and interests. They were also justifiably angry that immigrant organizations assumed that they could dictate the agenda of all American Muslims and expect others to follow them even if they were not consulted.

In the past two years, it has become readily apparent that there is not only ethnic but also political and interpretive diversity in the community. In the past, this author has described the American Muslim community as a community of communities- a description valid now more than ever before. There has been a surge of alternatives to the standard orthodoxy emerging within the community. Liberal Muslims are becoming increasingly vocal and are taking leadership positions within mainstream organizations. They are giving birth to new institutions that also seek to interpret Islam differently. Most importantly, alternate voices are gaining greater currency within the community and in the mainstream American culture.

The emergence of loud alternate voices has made the national organizations a bit hesitant in their presumption that they can speak for the entire community. In the past, the American Muslim Alliance (AMA) took leadership in the political process. It continues to mobilize Muslims, but is less presumptuous in its posture. A correlation exists between community perception and the financial support received (minimal) from the community. The Los Angeles based Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) continues to engage in policy, rather than political, issues. It devotes its energies toward a grassroots campaign against terrorism, but it is a member of the taskforce, and it remains to be seen what MPAC will do if the majority of Muslim organizations in the taskforce decide to endorse a candidate. 

CAIR, however, has resorted to alternate means of endorsement via the use of surveys; its recent effort on the political attitudes of CAIR membership is a defacto negative endorsement of the incumbent, George W. Bush. The survey suggests that only 2-3% of CAIR members will vote for Bush, while over 50% will vote for John Kerry. The rest are either undecided or leaning towards Ralph Nader (26%). The release of this data is essentially a proclamation that CAIR members who had overwhelmingly voted for Bush in 2000 (72%) are now determined to vote him out. The survey provides a safe and clever way making such a declaration.

The national organizations, now banded under the American Muslim Task Force, need to exercise caution in their endorsements, if and when they decide to make them. While it appears obvious that a significant majority of Muslims will vote for John Kerry, it is yet unclear whether the community will categorically support the national organizations’ endorsement of the Democratic candidate. An examination of the pros and cons of block voting for this election is essential and warranted.

The Advantages of Block Voting

1. In a close election, a community can play a decisive role in determining the outcome. The American system is based on the principle of “winner take all” and hence, newly emerging voting blocks that can make a significant difference and can exert influence beyond their small numbers by voting as a block.

2. In close elections, voting blocks can actually coerce political parties to change their electoral platforms. The US today is deeply divided- nearly equally- along party lines. Vacillating voting blocks can elicit more concessions from the party they have traditionally supported or gain new concessions from the other party. While there is much talk about the American Muslim vote block, it seems that the American Jewish community has already gained favors from both parties. Republicans have continued to support Israel, despite stiff international condemnation of the Jewish state, while John Kerry is trying hard to look more pro-Israeli than Bush. The Republicans are trying to court the American Jewish vote in their favor for the first time, while the Democrats are trying to retain it. Traditionally, the American Jewish vote has gone about 80% Democrat and 20% Republican- a reversal of this tendency is greatly coveted by the current White House.

3. If the politics of block voting were correctly applied, it could help unite the community. American Muslim politics are strangely compartmentalized. There are many Muslim groups that lobby for their former home nations, such as the Palestinian lobby and the Pakistani lobby. These groups have not only succeeded in mobilizing sections of the American Muslim community in pursuit of ethno-nationalistic political interests, they also have used financial resources and other resources of the community.  Unless the interests of all such sub-communities can be aligned, the effective exercise block voting is not possible.  It appears as though leaders of American Muslim organizations are more interested in projecting, to the mainstream media and the two political parties, the potential for a Muslims block vote rather than its actual execution. Such action is dangerous because it runs the risk of exposure. If the Muslim elite can unite on a common platform and work toward consensus building, such union may have both tactical and strategic benefits for the community. The American Muslim Task Force believes this may be accomplished by its civil rights agenda; however, there is no indication that there is consensus for the support and/or prioritization of this issue by the various Muslim sub-groups (e.g. Indian Muslim Council, etc.).

4. Block voting gives American Muslim Organizations and leaders greater influence and access in mainstream politics. Politicians and the media will seek them if they think these leaders are capable of manipulating and delivering the “Muslim Vote.” 

5. One symbolic advantage of block voting is the recognition of the community as a whole being an important political player. It gives recognition and awareness to their leaders, organizations and issues. Sometimes, the media attention to these issues can be dangerous, while on other occasions, it can be salutary. American Muslims achieved this in 2000; its necessity in 2004 is debatable.

The Risks and Dangers of Block Voting

While the advantages of block voting have been pervasively discussed within the community, especially given its prominence as an issue in the 2000 elections, the negative aspects of block voting are less studied and comprehended.

1. The biggest danger of block voting is the likelihood of endorsing the eventual loser. In American elections the probability of doing so is 50%. By officially endorsing a single party or candidate, the community effectively alienates itself from the other party/candidate and in a way declares its opposition openly. In the eventuality of the defeat of the endorsed candidate, the community will then be vulnerable to reprisals or isolation from government access. If, for example, American Muslims officially endorse John Kerry, vote for him in huge percentages (92-93% as CAIR’s membership survey indicates) and George W. Bush still wins, the community could face further difficulty, given current administration attitudes toward American Muslims.

2. Think long-term. Will the political parties develop deeper relationships with a community that oscillates its support? Trust in politics is a rare commodity, but also a very important asset. The community must learn to develop long-term and meaningful relationships with the two parties. Coercion and threats of mass exodus are not always beneficial devices.  Recent months have seen two parallel developments: American Muslim leaders’ rhetoric about the existence of a Muslim vote block and its use to vote against George W. Bush. They do this to intimidate the politicians. These leaders also like to talk about how there are 6-8 million Muslims in America. According to studies conducted by Aslam Abdullah, the editor of Minaret Magazine, there are only 2.7 to 3.0 million total potential Muslim voters.[vii] In addition, the Bush administration’s unwillingness to do anything on the Palestinian issue until the elections are over – except protect Israel from International condemnations and sanctions – has become copiously noticeable. The impetus for such a posture may be due to a realization that since American Muslims are not going to support the Bush-Cheney ticket, the Republicans may as well solicit- or manipulate- the American Jewish vote by appearing to be extremely pro-Israel. Block voting also allows the political parties to manipulate communities. It is tragic that the Palestine issue divides the Muslim and Jewish communities into adversaries even though the two communities have identical interests on most domestic issues, such as defending America’s secular ethos by protecting it from the rise of Christian fundamentalism, strengthening the welfare state and the civil rights environment.

3. An additional risk for American Muslims if their leadership insists on block vote politics is the possibility of (a) exposing the absence of political unity within the community and (b) actually exciting existing minor fissures into becoming major cleavages [viii]. The marginalization of the African American Muslims through the endorsement of George W. Bush in 2000 likely led to the establishment of Muslim Alliance of North America (MANA), an organization that seeks to represent indigenous Muslim interests. The creation of MANA serves as an expression of a vote of no-confidence by indigenous Muslims in the legitimacy of the national organizations established and managed by immigrant Muslims [ix].