Selective outrage of our race-and-religion politicians

Many here are celebrating the victories by some Muslim candidates in the US mid-term elections, but the results are more than about those few wins – they are about inclusivity, diversity and shared power.

IT'S twisted logic, really. There is something rather amusing, even ironic, about the way some of our politicians are reacting to the US mid-term elections.

When it comes to Malaysian politics, some are quick to invoke race and religion, insisting that these are the most important considerations when deciding who should lead the country.

One particular party leader has even said that is better to vote for a corrupt Muslim leader than an honest non-Muslim one.

They have built much of their political messaging around racial identity, religious affiliation and the need to protect particular communities.

Yet, when the results of the recent US midterm elections came in, some of these same politicians were quick to celebrate the victory of Muslim candidates. Suddenly, the message was about representation, diversity and the breaking of barriers.

There was much enthusiasm over Abdul El-Sayed becoming the first Muslim elected to the US Senate.

It was certainly a historic achievement, and there is every reason to acknowledge the significance of his victory.

But why stop there? The Nov 3 elections produced a remarkable list of historic firsts.

They saw women, African Americans, Latinos, Native Americans and members of the LGBTQ community elected to important positions.

Among them was Chris Pappas, who became the first openly gay man elected to the US Senate. Deb Haaland became the first Native American woman elected governor of a state.

Keisha Lance Bottoms became the first Black woman to occupy the governor's office in Georgia.

Gina Hinojosa made history as Texas' first Latina governor, while Peggy Flanagan became the first Native American woman elected to the US Senate.

These were not insignificant achievements. They represent a broadening of political representation in a country that has long struggled with questions of race, identity and equal opportunity.

Yet, one wonders whether our politicians who were so enthusiastic about the Muslim victories would be equally generous in acknowledging the achievements of these other candidates.

Why celebrate one identity while conveniently overlooking others?

The irony becomes even more apparent when we consider that these victories were not confined to one political party.

Florida elected Republican Byron Donalds as its first Black governor, while other historic breakthroughs came from Democratic candidates.

The American electorate, whatever its political divisions, has demonstrated that voters can choose candidates from different backgrounds and identities based on a much wider range of considerations.

It would not be wrong to assume many American voters were simply fed up of President Donald Trump's war cry and religious chest-thumping - in this case, the White Christian narrative.

Of course, nobody should suggest that Malaysia can simply transplant the American political system into our own.

Our history, constitutional arrangements, demographics and political realities are different.

But there are lessons worth considering.

The American elections showed that a candidate's religion, race, gender or sexual orientation need not automatically disqualify that person from seeking the highest public office.

Voters are also capable of looking beyond identity to examine a candidate's policies, leadership, experience and ability to serve the wider population.

That is the distinction our politicians should understand.

In Malaysia, we have too often witnessed political narratives that encourage communities to view one another with suspicion. Race and religion are repeatedly brought into political conversations, sometimes at the expense of more pressing national concerns such as the cost of living, education, employment, corruption and economic opportunities.

Our politicians cannot have it both ways.

They cannot champion religious representation when it suits their political narrative abroad, but question the legitimacy or suitability of people from other backgrounds when discussing leadership at home.

If the election of a Muslim senator in America is celebrated as a victory for inclusion, then surely the election of a woman, a Black politician, a Latino, a Native American or an openly gay politician should also be recognised as part of the same democratic principle.

Representation should not be a selective celebration.

There is also an important distinction between respecting someone's religious identity and expecting political leaders to govern primarily along religious lines. A Muslim politician in America is elected to represent all constituents, not Muslims alone.

The same applies to a Christian, Jew, Hindu or a politician of no religious faith. That is what public service is supposed to mean.

Malaysia, with its multiracial and multireligious population, has much to gain from a political culture that puts the interests of the nation above narrow communal considerations.

We should be asking whether our leaders can bring people together, rather than constantly reminding us of the differences that separate us.

Perhaps our politicians should look at the US results more closely. Not just at the Muslim victories that they were so eager to celebrate, but at the entire picture.

The message from the ballot box was much bigger than religion.

It was about the right of people from different backgrounds to participate in democracy and be judged as individuals.

If we can applaud that principle in America, why should it be so difficult to practise it in Malaysia?

Unity cannot be celebrated selectively, and diversity cannot be embraced only when it suits our political convenience.

That is a lesson worth bringing home. Malaysia belongs to Malaysians of all faiths and races.