Ealing Southall: Is voting by “families” and “congregations” acceptable in a democracy?
Ok. Time to make a comment on the Ealing By-Election.
I’m trying to raise the issue rather than make a partisan point here – which is why I have phrased the title as a question.
Congregations “come out in favour” of one political party
From Sunny Hundal over at Pickled Politics:
The Sikh vote is seen as crucial to this by-election, leading some election-watchers to make bad assumptions. The two major Gurudwaras in Southall (Havelock road & Park Avenue) have come out in favour of the Labour candidate Virendra Sharma for various reasons, despite his Hindu background. When he was Ealing mayor earlier, he had then formed a close relationship with the Gurudwara committee and helped them on occasion (I’m told). So they like him.
(Sunny – you might want to clarify if I have misunderstood anything).
My first question:
Why is it acceptable for religious congregations to “come out in favour” of a candidate – presumably having some sort of effect on the way a section of the community votes?
I seem to remember a “vigorous” reaction when Roman Catholic dignitaries attempted to express views about elections in Scotland.
My second question:
Which approach is right?
Family votes controlled by family head
From David Nikel’s interesting (it is worth a read) Ealing Southall Diaries – Day 4 posting
For me the interesting part of the afternoon was gaining a deeper understanding of various religions, in particular how this effects voting. For example, in many households, a son or daughter (sometimes in their 30s) would fetch the head of the household, as it was them that decided how the family would vote.
My third question
Why is it acceptable for a family head to decide how the family should vote?
My Comments
I’m not sure how to call this one – how to balance family and community loyalty with a democracy based on the views of the individual, and where does loyalty become corruption?
But I am sure that the same standards must apply everywhere – if it is acceptable for a faith leader in a Gudwara in Ealing to say “vote for x”, then it must be acceptable for a Cardinal in Scotland to say “don’t vote for y”.
I think that the answer is along the lines of “leaders can preach, teach and discuss all they like – but need to make clear that individuals are to use their own mind and conscience”.
What do you think?
Tags: ealing southwall by-election, religion in politics, communalism, democracy, Nigel Bakhai, Liberal Democrats, John Sydney Cartwright, The Official Monster Raving Loony Party, Sati Chaggar, English Democrats – ‘Putting England First!’, Salvinder Singh Dhillon, Respect – Peace, Justice, Equality, Sarah Janet Edwards, Green Party, Kuldeep Singh Grewal, Independent, Tony Lit, David Cameron’s Conservatives, Yakub Masih, Christian Party ‘Proclaiming Christ’s Lordship’, Jasdev Singh Rai, Independent, KT Rajan, UK Independence Party, Virendra Kumar Sharma, The Labour Party Candidate, Gulbash Singh, Independent[tags]ealing southwall by-election, religion in politics, communalism, democracy, Nigel Bakhai, Liberal Democrats, John Sydney Cartwright, The Official Monster Raving Loony Party, Sati Chaggar, English Democrats – ‘Putting England First!’, Salvinder Singh Dhillon, Respect – Peace, Justice, Equality, Sarah Janet Edwards, Green Party, Kuldeep Singh Grewal, Independent, Tony Lit, David Cameron’s Conservatives, Yakub Masih, Christian Party ‘Proclaiming Christ’s Lordship’, Jasdev Singh Rai, Independent, KT Rajan, UK Independence Party, Virendra Kumar Sharma, The Labour Party Candidate, Gulbash Singh, Independent[/tags]
Categories: News - Current Affairs, Politics
EalingSouthallwatch seems pretty clear that the unfortunate Pakistani Christian candidate should know his place.
I made a similar comment about the Iraqi elections back at the beginning of 2006. Is voting along ethnic lines really a democracy? Or is it just nationwide nepotism – “my gang is bigger than yours.”
Welcome to the politics of ethnic minority communities, Matt.
That’s not being facetious – well maybe a just a tiny bit – but the serious point is that within certain communities both practices you cite, and more besides, do take place and factors such as a candidate’s ethnic or religious background, family background and political views on matters and events taking place overseas (and in which the UK has little or no interest) are a factor.
What is changing is the extent to which parties other than Labour are now going out of their way to court minority communities – which is fine in democratic terms – but a source of potential problems given that neither the LDs or Tories possess much in the way of experience in dealing with and managing out communal/sectarian interests and neither party, for the most part, has much in the way of a clear understanding of the complex dynamics of such communities.
That’s not to suggest that either party should, or would be advised to leave Labour with a clear field in this. What they do need to realise is that they’re on a pretty steep learning curve at the moment and would be best advised not to try cheap shotting their way to votes at least until they understand fully what it is they’re getting into and have figured out how to handle the tensions without falling into the trap of aligning themselves with sectarian interests.
Is either practice acceptable? In an ideal world, no – but for the time-being its something we have to deal with and all parties need to understand that there are responsibilities that go with campaigning for the votes of minority communities that don’t arise when dealing with the rest of the population.
Thanks for the comments.
I guess that these questions are all far better out there being talked about – which was my aim. Time is probably the most important thing that is needed.
I was at Uni in Yorkshire for 4 years, so I’ve seen a bit of this kind of situation.
On the Christian Party Candidate, there’s also something funny going on.
>EalingSouthallwatch seems pretty clear that the unfortunate Pakistani Christian candidate should know his place.
I followed the link and the pages he references imply that the candidate has been both a Mormon and a Pentecostal Pastor. Those two together are about as likely as a Ahmadi (”Qadiani”) Muslim holding down the post as Imam in a Shia Mosque.
Probably a conflation of identities in my judgement.
btw Unity.
I’m surprised you don’t steal the coat of arms for yourself.
Regards the question posed from my quote – the family head feels responsible for making sure his family are in the best possible hands. Of course, as we all vote individually, there’s nothing stopping a rogue son or daughter casting their vote for a different candidate. Unless everyone is a registered postal voter, of course.
David
Thanks for your visit and comment.
Matt