By Fahad Ansari in London

Voting and electoral participation has always been a controversial topic among Muslims in Britain with an increasing number of Muslims now adopting the position that voting is not haram, with some even going so far as considering it an obligation. It is not surprising, therefore, that with general elections around the corner, there has been a recent flurry of emails, blogs, websites and even YouTube clips in circulation encouraging British Muslims to play their part and make sure they use their vote.

Leaving aside the issues of whether or not such actions are permissible according to the Shari‘ah (something this writer is in no way qualified to comment upon), one cannot help but observe a certain level of naivete among some of those who believe that voting in parliamentary elections can make a difference to the situation of Muslims today. Those who are promoting voting can be roughly divided into two camps: firstly, they are those who sincerely believe that voting and electoral participation is the primary, if not the only, way forward for Muslims in Britain to substantially change their condition. Should we not embark on this journey, we are doomed to drown in the ocean of oppression we are currently struggling in. On the other hand, there are those who promote voting with their primary focus being to empower the Muslim community and assist it to emerge from the ghettoised Islamic ideal that its imaginations fanticize about from day to day, week to week and year to year, with no tangible action ever being taken to fulfil that ideal. This camp believes that participation can achieve a positive change for Muslims and the societies we live in, albeit a very slight one. The key objective for them is to empower the community.

   Although both sides have different objectives for promoting electoral participation, which are laudable in the sense that both intend to bring about good for the community and for society, both make the same error in failing to inform, educate and enlighten their target audience about the pitfalls of such participation. The message coming out from both camps, directly or indirectly, is that by voting, we can select someone who will represent our interests in parliament. But isn’t this what democracy is all about? Perhaps not.

   To fully appreciate this, one must have a working knowledge of the inner mechanisms that operate in parliament, such as the “whipping” system. And yes, it is as graphic as it sounds. The Government Chief Whip, currently Nick Brown, is a political office entrusted with the task of administering the whipping system, which ensures that members of the party attend and vote as the party leadership desires. The Government Chief Whip is assisted by the Deputy Chief Whip, Whips, and Assistant Whips. Other parties have their own respective whips.

   Every week, the Chief Whip sends a circular (“the whip”) to all MPs in his party informing them of the schedule for the days ahead, and includes the sentence, “Your attendance is absolutely essential” next to each debate in which there will be a vote. This sentence is underlined one, two or three times depending on the consequences that will be suffered if they do not turn up. Three-line whips are imposed on important occasions, such as second readings of significant bills and motions of no confidence. Failure by MPs to attend a vote with a three-line whip is usually seen as a rebellion against the party and may eventually result in disciplinary action, such as suspension from the party. In essence, the “three-line whip” means that not only must MPs attend the vote, they must vote with the party and against their own beliefs (if they oppose the party line) and maybe even those of their constituents. If they do not, they will be effectively thrown out of the party. This means that no one ever disobeys a three-line whip, because to do so would be to sabotage his career beyond repair.

   Furthermore, the actual direction of the MPs’ vote is communicated to them in the chamber by hand signals during the division when the time to vote comes. Even though it determines the outcome of the votes crucially far more than the debate, neither these instructions, which are visible to everyone in the chamber, nor the “whip” letter at the start of the week, are recorded in Hansard as they are considered an internal matter of the political party.

   MPs are bullied to vote in line with the wishes of their party leadership. They often vote for a motion with only the very slightest idea of what it entails. This is evidenced from those MPs who are not attending a debate, usually over 80% of the total, but are at another meeting within the Division Bell area who have to rush to vote. They will often admit that they have little idea about the substance of the motion on which they are voting. Almost all of what is approved by Parliament is now just a rubber stamp of what has been decided by a Government department.

   But surely my MP will represent me and not buckle under the crack of the whip? Although sometimes MPs are allowed a “free vote”, which means they can vote according to their own opinion, this is the exception rather than the rule. Read again — the free vote is the exception, not the rule. As Jeremy Paxman once described this relationship, “For the average backbencher, the whip is the street-corner thug they need to get past on their way home from school. Treat him with respect, and life will be fine. If you cross him, watch out.”

   The consequences for defying the party whip can be career ending, depending on the circumstances, including the importance of the outcome and how close it will be. Although allow-ances can be made for MPs on certain occasions, including where issues are a matter of conscience, the general rule is that whips will resort to a mixture of promises, threats, blackmail and extortion to force an unpopular vote. So through a mixture of threats to expose your MP’s personal and financial affairs or promises of promotion, offers of places on select committees and trips abroad, the whips exercise far more control over your MP’s vote than you, the individual who voted him into office. In November 2008, for example, it emerged that the new chief whip, Nick Brown, proposed that any La-bour MP voting against the government in the past year would not be recommended to sit on all-party parliamentary select committees.

   Another clear example that is of direct effect to all Muslims in Britain is the manner in which amendments to the Extradition Act 2003, under which British citizens can be extradited to countries such as the US without the need to show a prima facie case, were voted on in 2006. There are currently a number of British Muslims facing extradition to the US under this Treaty including Babar Ahmad. On October 24, 2006, the House of Commons voted on amendments to the Police and Justice Bill which would have allowed a court — in a case where the alleged crime took place partially in the UK — to determine whether trial in the state requesting extradition would be in the interests of justice. On October 19, 2006, Parliamentarians re-ceived a letter from a coalition of civil liberties organisations, lawyers and corporate industry lobby groups requesting their support for the amendments. Opponents of the Treaty also lobbied their elected MPs to vote for the amendments. On the day of the vote, a drop-in briefing for MPs on the issue was held in a committee room in the House of Commons. Those present reported how the Government Chief Whip at the time, Jacqui Smith, sat outside the committee room to monitor and record names of MPs attending the meeting as a means of intimidating them not to attend.

   The impact of such a system is strongest on younger MPs who tend to see the select committee system as a route to ministerial office, rather than a chance to carve out a career as an independent-minded expert. Veteran MPs, such as Clare Short and Robin Cook, who stuck to their principles in opposing the Iraq war, are few and far between and have suffered for showing independence, effectively leaving the party.

   Although it is true that there is an increasing number of Socialist Labour MPs who consistently rebel against the party (such as Jeremey Corbyn and John Mcdonnell), it is still a tiny minority.

   In light of the above, it is worth noting the origin of the word whip within Parliament. According to the Houses of Parliament website, the word has its roots in the 18th century hunting terminology “whipper-in”. It refers to a huntsman’s assistant who drives straying hounds back to the main pack using a whip. How appropriate? The MP you campaign for, canvass for and vote for is at his most powerful a mere stray hound that can be whipped back to the pack by his or her master.

   I am not against voting per se but Muslims must not be so naive as to believe that it is the answer to our problems. Voting in local elections is a completely different game from Parliamen-tary elections. In the former, we can achieve some direct benefit to the societies we live in. In the latter, we are dependent on how much spine our MP has to face the whip. Of course, there must be and probably are limited ways to overcome this hurdle but these must be discussed and debated. By failing to even mention the hurdle, we allow our community to blindly run straight into it, which may cause enough injuries to force an early retirement.

   Furthermore, block Muslim voting can be a source of empowerment and very effective as was the case in the 2005 election when the Muslims of Bethnal Green & Bow displaced pro-war Labour MP Oona King by electing George Galloway. In such circumstances, Muslims should use their block vote to punish those MPs for their anti-Muslim policies. It is criminal that the Muslims in Blackburn have not used their vote to oust Jack Straw for his pro-war policies. Since the last election, Straw made his notorious comments about the niqab. Will the Muslims of Blackburn use their block vote to elect him again or to punish him? Similarly, the block Muslim vote should be utilised to reward MPs who have supported causes of justice and opposed oppression. However, once again, those who are promoting “the Muslim vote” are failing to offer strategic advice as to which MPs Muslims should vote for and instead, abandoning them to make their own choices. This effectively dilutes, if not destroys, the very essence of “the Muslim vote”.

   But let us be realistic. The Muslim vote is not likely to prevent the Far Right from winning seats in Parliament. By its very nature, the Muslim vote can only be effective in constituencies where there is a critical Muslim mass. It is highly unlikely that the BNP will even try and field candidates in such constituencies and are more likely to invest resources running candidates in winnable seats such as Barking, where there is no such thing as “the Muslim vote”.

   When it comes to parliamentary elections, in certain constituencies, voting has its benefits; MPs known for their anti-Muslim views, can be punished by a Muslim voting bloc. However, in all but a minority of cases, Muslims should not believe that the MP they actually vote for will represent them and not their party when it comes to issues that really matter. These MPs have taken a pledge of allegiance to the party they represent, which trumps the wishes of their constituents.

   By failing to inform and educate the masses about the dangers within the system, both camps promoting voting are failing to do justice to the objectives they seek to attain. Their actions are similar to a surgeon encouraging a patient to undergo a certain operation without advising him as to the inherent dangers involved or about any side effects that could occur as a result.

   It is time that we stopped playing reactionary politics where we are seen as swinging from one end of the spectrum to the other, but let us have an open and mature discussion about participation, warts and all. Or is there censorship in democracy