Nadia Ahmad on Decline in Muslim Representation in the DNC

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/07/28

Nadia B. Ahmad is a co-founder of a Coalition of Muslim Delegates and Allies, an elected DNC Member (Florida), co-Chair of the DNC Interfaith Council, and on the Executive Committee of the DNC Women’s Caucus.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here with Nadia Ahmad from the DNC. There has been a decline in the representation of Muslim Americans in the DNC. First, what is behind that trend over the last few years?

Nadia Ahmad: There are several factors associated with it. One of them is that there’s been more of a pushaway by Democrats from the Muslim-American electorate. They are not engaging with American Muslims in the way they have in previous years, mainly because of the issues surrounding the genocide in Gaza. Another factor is that American Muslims themselves are becoming more disenchanted and disillusioned with the political process, feeling as if they don’t have a platform to organize and have a voice within the Democratic Party. These two factors have been happening independently, leading to this decline in delegate numbers. It’s alarming, and there isn’t a concern among Democrats about it. The reason for that is that they have taken the American Muslim vote for granted for a long time. But it’s also an indication of other electoral groups being ignored as well, including Asian American Pacific Islanders, immigrant groups, and Latino/a voters.

Jacobsen: For the Coalition of Muslim Delegates and Allies, when did this start to arise and become politically salient and urgent as an issue to advocate for? If you’re not representing the full breadth of the country, there is a lack of representative democracy in the United States.

Ahmad: It’s important because not only were they not interested in running for delegate, but some folks who ran for delegate were delisted after the application process. The reasons for that varied across the country, but essentially, someone at the Democratic Party or state party said that the person’s social media wasn’t in line with the issues, primarily relating to the situation in Palestine. This is not fair because the same thing happened following the murder of George Floyd and the rise of the Black Lives Matter movement. There are also people from the immigrant community upset about the asylum policy, but none of those folks were delisted as a result. It was a targeted and systematic removal of American Muslims as delegates across the country, especially in states like Texas, Massachusetts, Virginia, and even California. This is not very pleasant because American Muslims are vital to pushing back against the rise of Donald Trump.

Jacobsen: In addition, there are two phenomena also going on here. One is anti-Muslim sentiment in the United States. Canada is obviously where I’m from. The Muslim population in the United States is not declining; it’s increasing. You should expect more representation based on that trend. For those who have been delisted, has this been coloured by anti-Muslim sentiment even in online commentary? 

Ahmad: The issue of delisting delegates wasn’t covered in the press because it was a small issue initially. But it becomes more alarming when we consider it a nationwide trend. As a parallel movement, the rise of the uncommitted movement also impacted the delegate count. For example, in Florida, where we did not have a primary for the presidential election, there are about half the number of Muslim delegates compared to 2020. There were about 9 Muslim delegates in Michigan in 2020, but now there are only two uncommitted delegates and one alternate. This is an alarming trend. One of the things that bothered me was a delegate from Massachusetts named Nazda Alam, who had served as a delegate three times previously. In all my conversations, this was someone who said, no matter what, we will be voting for Biden. She worked hard to mobilize thousands of people among the American Muslim community, the Bangladeshi American community, and immigrant groups.

And she was delisted as well. So, at that point, it showed me that the Democratic Party is not interested in engaging with Muslims. They want to keep doing these backroom deals and shutting us out of the process as much as they can. 

Jacobsen: Is this gendered? Is this impacting Muslim American women or Muslim American men more? 

Ahmad: Yes, it impacts all the people I know who were delisted, who were women, which is interesting because women are more likely to speak out, and all of them are also women of colour. So, many layers are going on here. Sometimes, Muslim men may have a more transactional relationship with the Democratic Party, interested in doing work with the government. Some of those folks are less likely to be splashy on their social media on these particular issues of importance. But, they self-censor themselves. 

Jacobsen: You mentioned the Israeli-Hamas war and the entrenchment in occupied Palestinian territories. Are those the only sorts of associations or commentaries that are impacting people’s representation as delegates? Or are there other pieces of commentary that are more impactful on their status as representatives? How is that playing out?

Ahmad: Yes. I would also add that last year, I signed a statement with about 800 genocide scholars stating that it would be a mistake to call it a war. It’s just a complete annihilation of a human population. That’s what we’re seeing in Gaza. You had dozens of people killed and 100 injured over the weekend, and then all you see is wall-to-wall coverage of the assassination attempt on Donald Trump. And that shows you that looking at the West from a third-world perspective looks very different regarding people’s lived experiences.

So, with the genocide in Gaza, it’s less a matter of that being a single issue. It’s a global issue impacting many other points. This constant spending on military funding, for instance. There have been close to a trillion dollars spent every year on Department of Defense expenditures by the United States, targeting certain Muslim-majority countries. Because of these heavy expenditures, we cannot have the same quality of life and social services available in other countries. For over 20 years, the US had this policy of engaging in war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Basically, we spent so much money, trillions of dollars, and walked away with very little. So, it’s part of this concern about not just the war that you see happening and this warmongering that happens but also the sense of the War on Terror being the only lens through which the West can view the Muslim world.

Jacobsen: Have any representatives been helpful in at least providing a bulwark against this rapid decline in Muslim delegate representation in the DNC?

Ahmad: We should have looked at it before we did. With all the other things that are happening right now in the election, you have one part of the party saying, let’s keep Biden in even if he’s in a coma. Then you have another part of the party that’s saying he needs to drop out because there’s going to be a spray to the rest of the party, not just in terms of control of the White House, but also control of the Senate and the ability to regain control in the House. So, between those two fronts, it’s hard for a very small minority group already seen with a suspicious lens to gain political power. 

Jacobsen: When individuals engage in political or social activism, many issues are interrelated when doing their work. So you’re doing your work as a DNC member in Florida. You’re also co-chair of the DNC Interfaith Council and on the DNC Women’s Caucus executive committee. How are you bringing those together, if in any way, to further get better Muslim representation in the DNC?

Ahmad: One of the things, for example, is that for as long as I can tell, there’s been no Muslim person who has served on the DNC longer than four years. So, it’s a one-time thing. It doesn’t allow them to grow within the party or develop clout. And that’s also by design. So let’s say, okay, I came and got involved with the interfaith council and was involved in the leadership of the women’s caucus. It’s not likely that I will be able to remain a part of the DNC or if it’s something I would want to do after the difficulty I’ve had in the past three and a half years. So it’s not as if there’s a building of a pipeline of Muslims into the DNC. It’s just to shuttle them out as soon as they arrive.

Jacobsen: What could the DNC do, and what pressure could the members apply, to change the structural setup so there can be a sustainable growth pattern and pipeline for Muslim Americans into and within the DNC?

Ahmad: One of the things that was put forward, and I did not put it forward, but by Yasmine Taeb, who ran for the Virginia legislature and then was elected to the DNC for a term from 2016 to 2020, and she also served on the credentials committee. She had recommended establishing a DNC Muslim council, the same way there is an interfaith council. That idea was shot down. What was most alarming is that one of the people who voted against it was James Zogby, who was the chair of the Ethnic Council and is a Christian of Lebanese descent. So what she and I also saw in ours times was constant gatekeeping. They want to have someone who is non-Muslim be the voice of Muslims because that person will control the narrative. He’s been at the DNC for 31 years, so for him to be relevant means that none of us will have a voice.

Jacobsen: What about allies? Will non-Muslim allies who have been effective in some manner maintain an appropriate representation of Muslim Americans in the DNC?

Ahmad: Even among members within the DNC, their allyship is very measured. For them, it’s a political calculus involved with whether or not they want to stand with and support us. One of the people who I would say was the best ally that I had was Thomas Kennedy, who was also part of the DNC delegation from Florida, but he resigned in protest of the situation in Palestine. He was just as disgusted as I was but didn’t want to see it.

Jacobsen: What are the bigger misunderstandings about this decline in Muslim representation in the DNC? What are people not getting when they hear this?

Ahmad: They forget that if there were some probability and statistics done relating to whether or not it’s worth it to get Muslim support behind the Democratic Party, there are voices to say no because when you include them, then you have to listen to them.

And that’s not something those empowered at the DNC are ready to do. There was also a measurement made in terms of “Okay, should we get support from Muslims in Michigan, or should we get support from the Jewish vote in Florida?” And clearly, that vote in Florida did not pull through. So, that vote in Michigan has just been dragged in the dirt. I think that they’re not ready to accept American Muslims as a part of the Democratic Party in a way that allows those who are part of it to maintain self-respect.

Jacobsen: How does this play out on the opposite side of the aisle? And again, I’m looking at this as a Canadian, so I’m looking at it as a foreigner. But how is Muslim representation in the RNC?

Ahmad: The people involved with the RNC, who are Muslim, are given more visibility, I would say, and they are also given a bit more respect. They’re still treated as tokens, but it’s better to be a Muslim token in the Republican Party in terms of how you’re treated than to be a token in the Democratic Party just because the way that they trample on you is different.

Jacobsen: How would you describe the character of the trampling?

Ahmad: So, for example, for most of the Muslims who are involved in the RNC, one of the issues that has captivated Muslim Americans is the issue of the book bans. What it also shows is a problem with the American Muslim electorate: they are more ready to be anti-gay than they are to be pro-Palestine. For example, there is a statement that was signed by several imams, close to 200, navigating our differences about Islam’s position on gay rights. They couldn’t sign that same statement relating to Palestine. That shows you that their hatred of LGBTQ individuals is higher than their concern and their ability to advocate for Palestine.

Jacobsen: What theological interpretation are they giving to justify this?

Ahmad: From my perspective, it’s a leadership failure for American Muslim leaders to recognize where their power lies. If they decide that, okay, we don’t want to afford dignity rights to everybody, then we can’t complain when we have our human rights violated.

Jacobsen: What would be the most significant single action the DNC could do to increase representation?

Ahmad: The obvious one is to stop the gatekeeping. When we call, please pick up the phone and talk to us instead of figuring out 50 ways to avoid us.

Jacobsen: Do you think that avoidance is part of the political calculus you mentioned before?

Ahmad: Yes. Even if you have somebody you would consider a friend or an ally within the DNC, they’ll talk to you and hear you out, but then they won’t do anything because it goes against their ability to work within the party. If they support us, they are our friends and won’t go along with the party. It will impact their ability to rise within the party.

Jacobsen: What culturally is happening inside that party not to provide fertile soil for growth in that way? What is happening?

Ahmad: It’s a failure of the mechanism that has created groupthink within the party. We all have to think the same way. We say we’re a big tent party, but we’re not. From an organizational perspective, that’s not healthy. On the one hand, you have a party saying that we support everybody, but we don’t support people if they don’t agree with some of the things we want to put forward. I’ve said before that I’m a better advocate of the Democratic Party because I’m adhering to the values of the Democratic Party more so than the Democratic National Committee is on its own. The Democratic Party platform says we don’t support endless wars, but then what have we done? We’ve gone into all these other countries, had covert CIA operations, and engaged militarily. We’ve been antagonistic with countries in Asia. How is this a policy that supports even what its platform has?

Jacobsen: How can people get involved? How can they support or donate?

Ahmad: We’ve never set up a bank account because this was a volunteer-led initiative. All we had was a listserv, a mailing list, and a website, and then we just organized because we felt that it was important. What we saw happening is that there was a lot of cronyism and corruption, even among American Muslim organizations, that led to them being ineffective. They had mission creep from various donors or were working through the security state apparatus, where they got their funding from Homeland Security or the Department of Defense. So, that limited their ability to speak up.

License & Copyright

In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. ©Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use or duplication of material without express permission from Scott Douglas Jacobsen strictly prohibited, excerpts and links must use full credit to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with direction to the original content.