Like many others, I was delighted when a Muslim British citizen of Pakistani origin won a major British municipal election and was officially invested as mayor of one of the largest and most important European cities. To me, this is proof of the vitality and maturity of societies that believe in the values of diversity, equality and non-discrimination, and that respect competence and talent regardless of ethnic or religious affiliation. At the same time, I am deeply saddened by some of the comments on this event by Arab and Muslim writers. These, I feel, are manifestations of the type of ideas that lend themselves to chauvinism, extremism and xenophobia. From the widely diverse reactions it is clear that two virtually antithetical readings of this event have emerged. The first emphasises Sadiq Khan's victory in these important elections even though he is a Muslim of Pakistani origin. In this view, society is the real maker of this success, not just the candidate who had mastered the skills and expertise that enabled him to communicate with others. This is about an electorate that has managed to overcome deep religious and ethnic prejudice and could develop the frame of mind capable of basing its choices in the framework of rules and principles that allow higher communal values to prevail over personal whims and biases. Naturally, this reading reflects an outlook that subscribes to the values of diversity, plurality and equality, which form the healthy foundations for building societies, states and governments capable of contributing effectively to the development of human civilisation. In the second reading, the significance of these important elections resides in the fact that the victor is a Muslim who is proud of his faith. Therefore, they are proof not only of his personal virtues and values as shaped or inspired by his religious creed, but also of the extent of change in the structure of European societies which, according to this reading, are evolving in a way that sooner or later will lead to the Islamicisation of those societies. Sadiq Khan is the son of a Muslim family. His forefathers fled from India to Pakistan before his parents immigrated to the UK in the late 1960s, settling in a working-class district in south London. His father, who died in 2003, worked as a public bus driver in London; his mother was a seamstress. Sadiq was the fifth of eight siblings (seven boys and a girl). The family lived in a modest home on a council estate (housing that municipal authorities provide for low-income families). He attended a state school in Tooting, went on to university to study law and then became a lawyer. Due to his humble background, he was influenced by the ideas of the Labour Party, which defends the rights of the poor and working classes. He joined the party, which soon nominated him as its candidate for the House of Commons for the same constituency where he attended school: Tooting. He won the seat in 2005 and then again in 2010. In 2007, he became minister for community cohesion and then became minister of transport in the last Labour government, entering British history as the first Muslim and first Asian to become a cabinet member. Today, Sadiq Khan is the most important figure in the capital of a country that had once been the “empire on which the sun never sets” and that ruled over nearly half the world's population, a large number of whom lived in India, the land of Sadiq's forefathers that had included the territory that would become Pakistan. It is particularly remarkable that a working-class Muslim of Pakistani origin would prevail in the polls against powerful and influential candidates such as Zac Goldsmith. The son of a well-known Jewish billionaire who married a daughter from the famous and fantastically wealthy Rothschild clan, Goldsmith was elected Conservative Party MP for the upper-class district of Richmond in 2010. He is one of the most prominent advocates of a British exit from the European Union. Nor did this Jewish candidate omit the tactic of accusing Khan of being linked to Islamic extremist groups. The attempt to exploit Islamophobia failed. According to the official tally, Khan obtained 1,310,143 votes compared to 994,614 votes in favour of his closest rival, Goldsmith. In other words, he won by a huge margin. It was also striking that he opened his acceptance speech following the official announcement of the results with Quranic formulas. He went on to pay tribute to his late father, expressing how much he was indebted to him and his sorrow that his father had not lived long enough to see this occasion. Sadiq also took the occasion to stress that his election meant that London had “chosen hope over fear and unity over division”. It was a speech that reflected an individual who is self-confident, unashamed of his humble background, proud of his religious and cultural affiliations. This was despite how thoroughly he appears to have assimilated into a society in which he personally fought for the values of tolerance, justice and full equality between all citizens, without discrimination on the basis of race, religion, creed or gender. In my opinion, Khan's victory by such a large margin testifies to the fact that the overwhelming majority of society in the British capital, at present, believes in these lofty values and has not been severely affected by the winds of Islamophobia that are sweeping most Western societies. The importance of Sadiq Khan's election should not be underestimated. But nor should it be exaggerated or blown out of proportion. It is an affirmation of the existence of successful examples of full assimilation of religious Muslim communities into European societies and, simultaneously, it is a sign that the electorate in the British capital is passing through the current moment with a high degree of political maturity, indicating that the mainstream there truly believes in the liberal values of tolerance and acceptance of the other in faith and ethnicity. However, this moment may not necessarily last or reflect overall trends in Europe. The history of Europe, where the soil gave birth to such ideologies and movements as racist Nazism, dictatorial fascism and classist Marxism, and produced such leaders as Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin, and US history that gave rise to McCarthyism in the 1950s and the neoconservatives at the beginning of this century, are full of surprises. While the long-established democracies have come a long way in entrenching the values of plurality, democracy and tolerance, these societies are not totally immune to extremist ideas, to which testifies the rising influence of the ultra-right in France, Germany, Holland and other European countries. Therefore, the conflict between genuine liberal values that champion the principles of citizenship and human rights and extremist ideas that foster various forms of racism and xenophobia is still alive and will probably continue for a long time. This said, there still is a vast difference between what is happening in established democratic societies and what is happening in most of our Arab and Islamic societies. To understand how vast the gulf is between these two groups of societies we only have to imagine Sadiq Khan's fate had his parents decided to emigrate to one of the Gulf countries instead of the UK. They may very well have secured jobs that won their families some financial security or perhaps even considerable wealth. They may also have been able to send their children to university. However, the family would have remained socially and politically marginalised. They would never have been able to obtain citizenship for themselves or their children. They would have remained in that vulnerable category of bedoon (without nationality) and perhaps ultimately forced to return to their country of origin. Our societies have a real problem that obstructs their progress and their ability to contribute to global civilisation. Our societies might bet able to build schools, universities and hospitals, construct seaports and airports, pave roads and dig tunnels. But they will never be able to unleash the energies of their peoples until they truly believe in the values of citizenship, equality and human rights, and until there are real guarantees for the rotation of authority and the verdict of the ballot box, as opposed to tanks and eliminating opponents through massacres, tossing them in jail, or lopping off their heads. The writer is a professor of political science at Cairo University.
