28.04.2004

For open borders and a worker's wage

Anas Altikriti stepped down as president of the Muslim Association of Britain in order to stand as a Respect candidate in Yorkshire and Humberside, where he tops the list for the unity coalition. He spoke to Peter Manson

Why did you feel it was necessary to resign the presidency of MAB?

Two main reasons. Firstly the improbability of combining the two duties. MAB has become a huge enterprise, and the responsibilities of gearing the organisation after the anti-war movement to face the rising problems and concerns of the muslim community in the light of the anti-terror laws and their targeting at home and abroad by rightwing extremists, fascists and even, unfortunately, official legislation was more than a full-time job. Normally my working day consists of 16-17 hours, seven days a week, and attempting to run an election campaign at the same time was impossible.

The second reason, which I also think is extremely important, is that MAB as an organisation needed to have the freedom to make its own choice. I made my choice as an individual - and most of the executive, I would say, have also declared their support for Respect. But there were talks to be had with the Liberal Democrats, with the Greens and possibly even with various Labour candidates and it would have been impossible for the president to have been standing for Respect while the organisation was talking to others.

MAB may still throw its weight officially behind Respect - the decision hasn’t yet been made. A number of people within the leadership have certain concerns that, if we did do that, then in some areas - the North West, for example - we might be spreading ourselves too thinly and perhaps allow the likes of the BNP to make an impact. I personally do not agree, and neither do the majority of the MAB members and leadership, but they were the concerns of certain individuals on the left and they have to be respected. It was important to have contact and communications with other parties and see what kind of potential they have for serving the interests of the muslim community before an official announcement was made. But eventually I do think that MAB is heading towards full support for Respect.

What is it that attracted you to the coalition?

One of the major aspects was that Respect speaks a different language from the main parties. We have arrived at quite a bottleneck in the political scene, where Labour, the Tories and even the Lib Dems are saying the same thing. Differences over policies - at home as well as abroad - are artificial and superficial and have no profound implication on the way the country is heading. Respect is, I think, a way out of the bottleneck.

Also I do not hide my personal admiration for George Galloway. He is a man of principle and in today’s politics, to be honest, we lack people of principle, people who would put their careers and personal welfare on the line for what they believe in. I’m not a professional politician, but for me at least he has restored a lot of hope that has been lost in the midst of what’s been going on for the past two years.
What would you say is the strongest part of Respect’s declaration?
No war, end of occupation, together with the rights of workers and people in the public sector. Apart from those paying lip service, I don’t see amongst the main parties any real stand for the pensioners, for the right of students to free education, for the restoration of some kind of dignified pay for people in the health service, education and transport.

I’m proud to have been one of the figures in the anti-war movement - MAB was one of the main pillars - and Respect’s stand in favour of an ethical foreign policy and to fight for dialogue and peaceful negotiations with all those with whom we differ is something that is vital in a world that has been blighted by war and bloodshed.

Those elements are the strongest and the most appealing. I have been speaking with George at so many forums and at every single one people welcome those particular points. They do feel that, whilst the pay of nurses, doctors and railworkers has been plummeting, we continue to be able to spend billions and billions on killing elsewhere in the world. That’s something which people just can’t stomach any more.

One of the main driving forces in Respect is the Socialist Workers Party. What do say to those who might think it strange for a muslim organisation to be in an alliance with revolutionary Marxists?

That is a question that was first posed more than two and a half years ago, when we started off this movement in the aftermath of 9/11 and the escalation towards war in Afghanistan. Some even said that it would be an ‘impossible alliance’.

The fact of the matter is that I act as a muslim. All these thoughts I’m giving you are not merely because I want to win an election or because I want to gain personally or promote my own particular agenda. It’s something I deeply believe in as a muslim. We have a tenet in islam and that is to collaborate and coordinate with all human beings - whatever their race, religion, creed or background - in order to spread the realm of good, of justice, of truth, of freedom. Therefore it comes as no surprise at this particular moment - when the concerns of the majority of people around the world are focusing on the widening gap between rich and poor, the decline of the status and standard of living for those who uphold society and keep it together through their work in the public sector, whilst wars continue to arise - that we, together with the socialists and, as you say, the revolutionary Marxists and others, join hands, simply because those notions are now paramount.

Of course that doesn’t mean that we will agree on everything. We recognise in the anti-war movement that we will arrive at certain points where we will disagree, but at this time the most important thing - the highest of concerns, if you like - is over matters where we agree entirely.

Perhaps a section of MAB has reservations about working with ‘godless communists’.

Not in MAB. There were reservations in certain corners of the muslim community - in terms, firstly, of whether this could be a successful venture and, secondly, obviously for religious reasons. These latter doubts were put to rest quite early on, simply because our consultation with clerics, with scholars - around the world and here in Britain - led us to the conclusion that it’s obligatory to work with those who agree with us, whoever they might be, whatever their faith or lack thereof, in order to spread what is good and prevent what is evil. If this is the priority of the day, you collaborate with anyone.

As to whether it could be a success or not, this was found to be baseless during the two-year campaign and the manner in which we worked together in the anti-war movement. So within MAB there is now a clear conviction that this is the right way to go.

It’s not in any way a Machiavellian approach of the end justifying the means. It’s an approach that has been informed by our religion, our faith. People are free to believe as they wish and to live their lives as they deem fit. Our belief is that every single person will be held individually responsible for their own actions. It’s none of my concern what anyone else believes or practises in their private lives. Generally and in public life we share a common interest, and that is sufficient for us to join hands.
Nevertheless you’ve joined hands within an organisation that has ‘socialism’ in its title. So would you describe yourself as a socialist of one kind or another?

I wouldn’t describe myself as a socialist, but as someone who believes entirely in social values and norms. I think there is a lot to be gained from the modern term of socialism and what it entails. Islam has a lot in common with it - equality, the dignity of people, rewarding their efforts and upholding society, performing well in public life and so on. We agree on many such terms, although, when it comes to the practice, we may differ. But that is to be expected and there shouldn’t be a problem with it.

Some say you might have a problem with the clause in Respect’s declaration that refers to self-determination regarding sexual choices.

As muslims we recognise the fact that we live in a secular society, where absolute freedoms are the norm. People have come to agree that there are freedoms in all spheres of life, including sexual liberty. I as an individual may have reservations in that regard, but I don’t hold this against anyone, nor do I have the right to do so, whatever their sexual orientation is.

I have no right as a muslim, nor is it my business, to interfere in anyone’s personal lifestyle - that is for every individual. I have my own views on homosexuality, etc, but I am practising a freedom that is also offered to others to do as they wish. We’ve agreed a common ground, we’ve agreed general terms and labels, but also to differ on how we practise and interpret certain things. That just shows once again the diversity not only of the anti-war movement, where we had people of all representations and manifestations, but also that it’s channelling through into Respect - it does reflect society in its wider context.

You said that Britain is secular society, but there is no separation of church and state, for example. Are you in favour of secularity?

I would disagree with your statement that we don’t live in a secular society - I think we do in reality. Whether we have a monarch that is the ‘defender of all faiths’ or a church that has certain public roles, they have little influence in general.

The law stipulates that there must be a religious assembly every morning in all state schools.
Yes, but in general that is on the decline and people are less and less inclined to involve religion in their public lives.

Do you think religion should be separate from the state in Britain?

To be honest, I haven’t given it much thought and I don’t think Respect has a particular policy on this. I think that religion is important and I personally was brought up in a religious household. There are certain things to be gained from religion, especially codes of morality and ethics and so on - which is not to say that people who do not practise religion are lacking in those things. Spirituality offers a certain element to the persona that is important in these times.

But we live in a society which allows people to exercise or not whatever religion they wish and that is something we recognise as muslims. We uphold our religion and reserve the right to offer what we see as solutions to today’s problems - whether they be relating to crime, family values or social life - but we also recognise the right of others to forego religion and to live their lives as they see fit.

In order to ensure equality between those who practise religion and those who don’t, we say that religion should be kept separate from official state structures.

I agree entirely that personal rights and freedoms have to come into this. For instance, there are muslim students who attend state schools and they ought to have the right not to attend prayers administered by the church, as would anyone of another religion or none.

They do have that right already, of course, but should a religious service be required by the state in the first place?

I would disagree to some extent that it is a must to separate religion from our school system. It is important to have a spiritual or religious side to education and to leave it open to students to decide. The other side of the coin is that it is wrong to enforce the lack of religion. As I say, I haven’t given this matter much thought and I don’t think I can elaborate further.

You mentioned the role of the monarchy. The CPGB has proposed that the ‘R’ in Respect should stand for ‘republic’. What are your views on that?

Once again it’s a matter I haven’t actually given much thought to. I have to be honest and say that at this moment I don’t think it’s a major concern of the people. It often comes up in the sense of how much we’re spending to preserve the monarchy, but I don’t think that’s enough. There are a lot of arguments against having a monarchy but they aren’t being portrayed sufficiently.

But there are also arguments for the status quo. I look at examples around the world and I feel that maybe we wouldn’t actually be progressing if we were to follow their example. There are many arguments for and against.

Let me turn now to the question of migration. Our position is that people should have the right to live, work and settle anywhere in the world and there should be no restrictions on this. What is your opinion?

I agree. I personally am an immigrant, arriving on these shores when I was about three years old. Sometimes I am reminded by people who think I’ve forgotten my place that I’m an immigrant and it amuses me when people say, ‘Go home’, when my home is in Leeds.

We live in a world where borders are very superficial entities. It is a fallacy to regard immigrants as a burden, as the right do, without looking at the contribution that the mobile population has made to our country and to the world. Countries such as Canada and Germany are welcoming immigrants, albeit in a controlled manner. We do have an ageing society and a decline in the younger and more dynamic population. We do have problems in certain sectors of manufacturing industry and public services and therefore a mobile population - coming in or going out - is something that would assist that situation.

The argument is not being put forward in any kind of reasonable or proportionate manner - it comes from the far right with their false claims. It’s quite extraordinary that the term ‘immigrant’ is almost on a par with ‘terrorist’. Yet we have more than 18,000 doctors in the NHS who come from outside Europe. If the far right had their way and, as Mr Le Pen said at the weekend, these people were ‘resettled’ conveniently back in their homeland, the NHS would collapse. But when anyone speaks up for immigrants, they are almost seen as being unpatriotic.

There is another aspect as well, linked to the anti-war movement. When we meddle in other countries’ affairs, launch wars and ruin people’s futures and lives, they will seek to go and live in other lands safely and securely. So one way for the issue of immigration to be resolved is to bring about measures that help third world countries rather than assisting dictators and tyrannical regimes, to stop our funds going towards establishing a weapons trade of incredible proportions. Then we would see people living happily and prosperously in their own lands.

I for one was born in Iraq and, all my life, my dream and that of my parents is to go back. I barely have any memories of Iraq, but I still feel an affinity towards it. But the way the right is using this issue borders on the fascist.

One more point on the commitment of candidates. We think elected representatives should only accept the equivalent of an average skilled workers’ wage. What is your view on this question?

Today I was reading about Mrs Kinnock and her expenses and I was shocked. My word, just think of it, if I got to Brussels! But I agree - politics is becoming a gravy train rather than a service to people, with the system being exploited by politicians who want to increase their bank accounts. This is something that mustn’t be accepted. I agree that we should try out a system where MPs or MEPs get salaries comparable to public sector workers, civil servants and the like and see how many people would then be fighting for office.

All Socialist Alliance candidates committed themselves to a worker’s wage and to handing over the rest of their salary to the movement. What do you think of such a commitment personally?

It’s an admirable one. If that was a policy in Respect, I wouldn’t say no to it - it would be helpful in a sense. At the same time, what we ought to establish - and this is something I take from being a muslim - is that there will always be rich and poor. Therefore there is an obligation on the wealthy - and those that have jobs, positions, talent or skills that allow them better financial rewards - to take a bigger responsibility for community projects.

In islam we have what is called zakat, or alms, and so, the more you have in terms of wealth, the more you are liable to pay towards charitable and community projects. That way, the gap between rich and poor will remain proportionate, acceptable and reasonable and the affinity between all sectors of society will be valid, with no segregation between rich and poor.

But, as I say, the stance taken by the party you refer to is admirable - showing a commitment to serving, rather than seeking personal gain, and this is paramount.

What do you hope will come out of Respect? Should it become a party?

I think the potential for it developing into a party is quite considerable. The things I’ve seen over the past two weeks since I’ve started campaigning have been beyond what I had imagined. However, it’s important to see what happens in the European elections. The main objective is to send a very clear message or, as George Galloway often puts it, give Tony Blair a bloody nose. The Labour Party needs to be reshaped and basically put back together again - we must show that it can’t afford to take people’s votes for granted any longer.

Labour needs a change in leadership. We need to reclaim the notion of the party that caused us all to celebrate when it came back to power in 1997. If that happens, there may be room for the view that we’ve done what we aimed for - reclaim the Labour Party.

But if that doesn’t happen, then I think Respect does have the principles and the cornerstones to becoming a political party.