Weekly Worker 575 Thursday May 5 2005

A question of class

Ben Lewis has a closer look at some of the Muslim candidates standing for Respect

Readers of the Weekly Worker will be more than familiar with our general tactical approach to the elections, and why we argued for critical support for anti-occupation, working class candidates.
Some have argued that such an approach was flawed in that all the Respect candidates were standing on the same platform and so could be equally supported (critically, of course) in opposition to New Labour.

That failed to locate the class contradiction which lies at the heart of Respect. According to the Socialist Workers Party Respect is an alliance between “secular socialists and muslim activists”. Indeed its manifesto and its whole political approach is shaped and coloured by the attempt to make the largely phantom “muslim activist” wing of Respect real. Therefore to highlight the popular frontist nature of Respect we said there should be no vote in support of Respect’s non-working class candidates.

Mohammed Naseem: third way?

A good example of the sort of candidate we meant is Mohammed Naseem, who stood in Birmingham Perry Barr. He is an executive member the Islamic Party of Britain.

Set up in 1989, the IPB argues “for a better future with islam” and aims to “give muslims a voice” within a world “ruled by forces prejudiced with anti-islamic sentiment” (www.islamicparty.com). Reading on, we learn that the party’s “main efforts are, however, directed at the majority of non-muslims living in the west, who are to be offered practical alternatives to the problems of modern society and may be helped to understand that as an ideology and way of life islam is superior to the failed ideologies of capitalism and communism.”

The IPB must be pleased that one of its executive members - who presumably agrees with this vision of an anti-socialist ‘third way’ - was a general election candidate. Mohammed Naseem, already recognised as a prominent ‘community leader’ and chair of Birmingham Central Mosque, was happily promoted by representatives of one of the “failed ideologies”, members of the Socialist Workers Party.

The IPB’s website is very interesting, and its politics are a strange mix of liberalism, religious dogma and anti-capitalist sentiment. The economic section features a soft critique of this system based on “usury”, which is devoid of the human values of “compassion and mercy”.

Yet the alternative is not a society of the associated producers. In fact, “as humanity cannot progress one iota towards contentment without a recognition of god”, we should look instead to the “system of economics” described in the Koran.

Under the heading ‘Education’ we find a statement with which communists wholeheartedly concur: “Knowledge is to be regarded as a universal property, and education as a universal right.” Yet the kind of education the IPB envisages is one where islam provides the overarching backdrop - neither “secularism” nor “materialism” can “lay claim to be the only acceptable ideology for public life”.

The IPB’s petty bourgeois vision highlights islam’s contradictions. Its followers can take from it a form of anti-imperialism (albeit by glorifying the past); the emancipation of the poor and oppressed (albeit through paternalistic charity-mongering); and the insight that bourgeois democracy is riddled with hypocrisy (although seeing the alternative as the rule of god).

The left ought to engage with those influenced by organisations such as the IPB, but also radicalised by the response to 9/11, the invasion of Iraq and the anti-war upsurge, by attempting to win them to the only viable way of delivering a world without wars, poverty and capitalism - the project of working class socialism.
Instead we have seen Respect’s right wing, made up of no more than a few individuals, being free to dictate to the “secular socialists” what is and is not acceptable. The “secular socialists” voted down both secularism and socialism at the Respect conference in October 30-31 2004. Yet those who criticise such unprincipled and totally unnecessary compromises run the risk of being dismissed as an ‘islamophobes’.

No doubt Mohammed Naseem has done all sorts of fine mobilising work within the anti-war movement. And, of course, it is perfectly acceptable - indeed desirable - to cooperate closely with him and those like him in all sorts of campaigns. But what we must not do is blur the class line and fail to distinguish between fleeting alliances and a programme for government. By not voting for Mohammed Naseem we dramatised the difference between class politics and popular front politics.

And for those SWP comrades who refuse to understand this tactic, let me quote from a pamphlet written in 1994 by their very own Chris Harman, entitled The prophet and the proletariat, which can be found on the Socialist Review website:

“The left has made two mistakes in relation to the islamists in the past. The first has been to write them off as fascists, with whom we have nothing in common. The second has been to see them as ‘progressives’ who must not be criticised. These mistakes have jointly played a part in helping the islamists to grow at the expense of the left in much of the Middle East. The need is for a different approach that sees islamism as the product of a deep social crisis which it can do nothing to resolve, and which fights to win some of the young people who support it to a very different, independent, revolutionary socialist perspective” (http://pubs.socialistreview-index.org.uk/isj64/harman.htm).

Where now after the election, comrades?.
Ben Lewis

Print this page