Religion in politics: should we be wary or accept its influence?

A more inclusive and proactive strategy is essential to ensure that all Australians, regardless of their background, can live free from discrimination and harassment.

The emergence of the Muslim Vote group in Australia signifies a new dynamic in the political landscape. Unlike a traditional political party, this group focuses on educating and mobilising voters on specific issues, particularly those related to events and international injustice in Palestine. By supporting independent candidates in Labor-held seats in Western Sydney and Melbourne, the Muslim Vote mirrors the strategy of Climate 200, which successfully supported independents in Liberal-held seats during the 2019 and 2022 federal elections. However, the Muslim Vote has sparked significant backlash from the mainstream media and establishment politics, with sensationalist claims about the impending imposition of Sharia law and dire warnings about Australia’s future.

The criticism of the Muslim Vote highlights a deep-seated inconsistency in Australian politics, where religious influence is selectively tolerated. For instance, former prime ministers Kevin Rudd and Scott Morrison openly expressed their faiths while they were in office, as does the current Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, albeit to a much lesser extent. The Speaker of the House of Representatives, Milton Dick, is scheduled as a guest speaker at the ROAR Leaders Summit in September, organised by the evangelist Breakthrough Church to explore the Seven Mountains Mandate to conquer the key spheres of influence in society and “what God is doing in various spheres of influence” and the “importance of kingdom leadership”.

The Christian Democrats have also maintained a political presence in New South Wales Parliament over many decades and although they are a very small political player, they do regularly feature in federal campaigns. This selective acceptance is evident in the continued recitation of the Lord’s Prayer in parliament and this raises questions about why Islamic influence is viewed with suspicion while other and sometimes more extreme and reactionary religious influences are accepted.

The argument could – and should – be made that religion must be entirely absent from politics, reflecting the doctrine of separation of the church from state, a key feature of democratic systems for almost 400 years. However, since religious influence is already entrenched in Australian politics, is it fair to discriminate against Islamic participation while tolerating other faiths? The electorate, as the ultimate decision-maker, should determine the acceptability of religious influence through democratic processes. The current trend in Australia shows a decline in religious adherence, with fewer people attending church or other religious gatherings than ever before. Nonetheless, can the presence of religious individuals and their participation in politics be respected, provided it aligns with democratic principles?

The political landscape in Australia has seen the detrimental effects of religious factions within political parties, particularly the influence of Pentecostalism. The Victorian Liberal Party, for example, has faced significant challenges due to the dominance of Pentecostal factions, rendering it unelectable in many respects. In contrast, the NSW Liberal Party appears to be cautiously navigating this issue, learning from the Victorian experience to avoid similar pitfalls. The upcoming state election in Queensland will further test the influence of religious factions within the Liberal–National Party.

The case of Katherine Deves, a prominent Pentecostal figure who ran as a candidate for the Liberal Party in the 2022 federal election on religious–transgender issues and failed to reclaim the seat of Warringah from Zali Steggall, highlights the limited appeal of overtly religious candidates. Steggall, a relatively secular candidate, managed to resonate with her community more effectively, suggesting that voters prioritise local representation over religious affiliation – religion seems to be acceptable, as long as it remains a private matter. This trend is likely to influence the broader acceptance of groups like the Muslim Vote, as long as they focus on informing and empowering their communities on key issues such as Palestine as a political issue, rather than imposing religious doctrines.

A potential game-changer in the upcoming federal election

The influence of the Muslim Vote group on the next Australian federal election, especially in Labor-held seats in Western Sydney, is an issue of considerable interest. Drawing parallels to the British Muslim Vote group, which successfully supported four independent candidates against Labour contenders and reduced majorities in many other constituencies, the potential impact in Australia is significant. Although the British Parliament’s 650 seats render four victories relatively minor, the Australian Labor Party must take notice, especially given their narrow five-seat majority in a 151-seat parliament and the possible nominal loss of one seat due to electoral redistributions.

The Muslim Vote group’s focus on Justice for Palestine is prominently displayed on their website and resonates with the concerns of many Muslim and non-Muslim Australians concerned about the ongoing genocide in Gaza. Key seats in Western Sydney, such as Watson and Blaxland, held by Tony Burke and Jason Clare respectively, have substantial Islamic populations – approximately 25 per cent in Watson and 31 per cent in Blaxland. While an Islamic background does not guarantee support for an independent candidate from the same background, even half of these populations voting independently could shift these seats into marginal territory, although the ultimate effect will depend on the quality of the independent candidates and the broader electoral context.

Critics might argue that the influence of Muslim Vote in only a few seats is negligible. However, in a tightly contested election where every seat counts, this could be critical. Comparing the Muslim Vote to the Teal movement from 2019 onwards, or even further back to the rise of One Nation in 1997, provides a framework for understanding its potential impact. One Nation, though vastly different ideologically, similarly represented a group of disaffected voters finding a political voice and disrupting the status quo. The Prime Minister at the time, John Howard, used strategic “dog-whistling” and manipulative management of One Nation voters to bring them back to the Liberal Party, and these tactics highlight how mainstream parties can mitigate the effects of such movements, if they have the will and the skill to do this.

For the Labor Party, understanding and addressing the grievances of Muslim Australians and others in the electorate who are deeply concerned and distressed about the government’s indifference to the events in Gaza, is crucial. This includes differentiating between legitimate concerns and misconceptions, many of which are perpetuated by sensationalist media coverage. The portrayal of the Muslim Vote as a gateway to Sharia law reflects a lack of understanding and a tendency to invoke fear rather than engage with the real issues. The vast majority of Muslims do not support such extreme interpretations, highlighting the diversity of thought within Islam – a complexity often overlooked by the media.

Addressing the concerns of the Muslim Vote group does not imply yielding to extremist demands but rather recognising and integrating the legitimate aspirations of a significant community within Australia’s multicultural society. This approach could prevent the marginalisation of Muslim Australians and strengthen the democratic fabric of the nation. The upcoming federal election will test the extent to which the Labor Party can adapt to this new political reality and whether they can successfully engage with and integrate the voices represented by the Muslim Vote.

The government’s misguided strategy of favouring conservative Jewish groups

The current political behaviour of the Labor government regarding the Palestine issue is perplexing, especially given the historical context of political leaders navigating conflicting issues with skill – Howard’s adept and cynical management of One Nation is a case in point, demonstrating how a leader can keep various sides of an issue satisfied (to some extent) and minimise political risks to the government of the day.

However, the Labor government’s approach to the Palestine issue seems to lack this nuanced strategy. They have already lost a Senator over this issue and risk losing additional seats in Western Sydney due to their alignment with Israel over Palestine. This approach not only jeopardises their standing in specific constituencies but also fails to offer any clear electoral advantage elsewhere in the country. Why would a government continue down a path that has lost a member of Caucus, produced great hostility with its membership and supporters, and could ultimately result in losing either its parliamentary majority, or losing government entirely at the next federal election?

The influence of the right-wing Israel lobby within Australian politics is evident in these actions and the decision by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese to appoint a special envoy to combat antisemitism, Jillian Segal, further illustrates this point. While addressing antisemitism is undoubtedly important, the choice of Segal, who is known for her pro-Israel and Zionist stance, and support of the Israel Defense Forces’ actions in Gaza, raises serious concerns, and the appointment favours conservative Jewish lobby groups while sidelining progressive Jewish voices.

This appointment has been criticised by members of the Jewish community who feel it misrepresents the diversity of Jewish perspectives on Israel and Palestine. Sarah Schwartz, CEO of the Jewish Council of Australia, did emphasise that antisemitism is a serious and rising issue, but suggested the government’s choice of envoy who lacks a background in fighting anti-racism and, instead, has a history of lobbying for Israel, could be used politically to stifle voices supporting Palestinian rights and does not enhance the safety of Jewish people in Australia.

The Labor government’s siding with the conservative side of the Jewish community, particularly in the context of appointing a pro-Israel envoy, illustrates their alignment with certain influential lobby groups. This strategy, however, overlooks the broader spectrum of Jewish opinions and fails to address the legitimate concerns of those who support Palestinian human rights. By not engaging with these progressive voices, the government risks alienating a significant portion of the electorate that values a more balanced and human-rights-focused approach to the Israel–Palestine conflict.

Symbolic gestures fall short in addressing broader issues of discrimination

Prime Minister Albanese announced that he would also appoint a special envoy to combat Islamophobia, but this announcement seems to have come as an afterthought rather than a serious commitment. Islamophobia has long been a significant issue for the Islamic community in Australia and if the government was genuinely committed to combating discrimination, why not announce the special envoy for Islamophobia simultaneously with the one for antisemitism? The staggered approach suggests a reactive rather than a proactive stance, casting doubt on the sincerity of these initiatives.

The necessity and efficacy of these special envoys are debatable. Australia already has an Anti-Discrimination Commissioner and a Human Rights Commission that have been effectively addressing issues of discrimination for years. Appointing additional special envoys seems redundant and politically motivated, serving more as a token gesture than a genuine solution. Antisemitism is unacceptable, as is any form of discrimination. However, creating specific envoy positions without a comprehensive strategy appears to be more about appeasement than about real change.

The broader issue at stake is how to combat all forms of discrimination and ensure that every Australian citizen lives safely and peacefully, without harassment based on their background or beliefs. The focus should not be on protecting certain segments of society while neglecting others but on fostering an inclusive environment for all. The government’s current strategy, marked by knee-jerk reactions and a lack of comprehensive planning, falls short of this ideal.

A more thoughtful approach would involve a genuine commitment to addressing all forms of discrimination equally and transparently. This means listening to and incorporating the voices of all affected communities, not just the most politically influential ones. It means leveraging existing frameworks such as the Human Rights Commission more effectively rather than creating redundant positions. Ultimately, it requires a shift from reactive to proactive governance, where the safety and wellbeing of all citizens are paramount.

The Labor government’s current handling of the Palestine issue and its approach to addressing discrimination reflect a problematic strategy driven more by political appeasement than by genuine commitment to justice and equality. A more inclusive and proactive strategy is essential to ensure that all Australians, regardless of their background, can live free from discrimination and harassment.