Kemi Badenoch has certainly highlighted why it is urgent that we move away from looking at her leadership through the limited lens of identity politics, writes Fatima Rajina. [GETTY]
Kemi Badenoch’s election as the first black woman to lead the Conservative Party marks a significant moment in Britain’s political history.
Under Boris Johnson, she advanced through a series of positions, most notably as Secretary of State for Women and Equality, Housing, Communities, and Local Government, before being renamed Minister of State for Levelling Up Communities.
She was named Secretary of State for International Trade under Rishi Sunak’s cabinet, along with the added responsibility of Minister for Equality and Women. Badenoch kept her equalities brief but was transferred to the newly established Department for Business and Trade in a February 2022 cabinet upheaval.
Now, Badenoch’s political ascension to the top of the Conservative Party marks a new era. She is not only the first black woman to lead a political party, but she could also potentially be the first black woman to lead the UK in the future.
But why is her ascent to victory not filling me with joy?
In reality, her leadership presents a real danger for many communities. It symbolises the party’s further shift to the right and demonstrates how, in this climate, anyone spewing hate is electable.
When we pay attention to the times Badenoch has made media appearances, it has always been fraught. She appeared on Sky News alongside Trevor Phillips during her latest leadership contest. In the interview, she explicitly notes that people who come from countries that see Israel as an enemy should be flagged to the state. Why is a migrant/refugee’s status and access to Britain contingent upon the perception of another nation’s?
By centring Israel as the marker for who constitutes the right of entry, it positions migrants as anti-Semitic by default. This is a dangerous precedent to set as it would not only vilify migrants further, but it will make it possible for the far-right xenophobic policies to become acceptable to the wider public.
As Badenoch continues the conversation with Phillips about Israel, she proceeds to insinuate that Muslims are the problem, as they seem to dislike Israel more than others. Badenoch uses the example of northern Nigeria in particular –  where there are more Muslims – in order to compare the difference in this religious group’s response to Israel compared to non-Muslims. Her regurgitation of the dangerous transnational Muslim subject is troubling because not only is she continuing her party’s legacy of maligning Muslims and framing them as inherently anti-Semitic, but she is also asserting what her policies on international politics could look like.
Anyone familiar with the Palestine solidarity movement will know it is not just made up of Muslims. But Badenoch’s centring of this group is an attempt to discredit the growing, diverse support for the Palestinian struggle. This specific association of the Palestinian movement with Muslims has been particularly peddled and legitimised because of the dehumanisation of Muslims through the two decades of the War on Terror discourse.
Additionally, support for Palestine has been intricately tied to the Prevent strategy, which trains public sector workers to look out for signs of so-called radicalisation/terrorism. There have been cases where young people have been referred under this strategy simply for showing support for Palestine.
Punitively punishing a people for rightfully resisting the occupation of their land does not amount to moral clarity but a depravity that can only be inherited from Europe and its viscerally violent imperial history.
Furthermore, Badenoch’s focus on Muslims and suggesting that ‘not all cultures are equally valid’ indulges civilisational ideas that require people to see some as beneath them.
At every turn, we should push back against the politics this new leader has been peddling on Muslims, and migrants, as well as Palestine solidarity activists by extension. This is not just because it further cements division, but because it is a window into how the state will eventually broaden its repressive tactics towards everyone. And this trajectory is clear, just look at her jibes at the Black Lives Matter movement, or her shunning of Critical Race Theory being taught in universities.
Indeed, any space that equips people with the understanding and skills or organise against oppression is deemed a target by the right-wing politics that Badenoch and her party represent. Whilst she may indulge in much of the culture war talking points to stay relevant and appeal to her voter base, she is also contributing in a dangerous climate of rising racism and anti-migrant hate, as well as fuelling the targeting of social justice movements.
Kemi Badenoch has certainly highlighted why it is urgent that we move away from looking at her leadership through the limited lens of identity politics, because this ‘historic’ moment is really a multiracial ascension to fascism. If anything, her election powerfully demonstrates that representation is where politics goes to die. Using racialised minorities as political fodder reflects the inadequacies of our elected officials. This system upheld by racialised people cannot cure the disease of Islamophobia; the solution can only be found in liberation politics.Â
Dr Fatima Rajina is a sociologist based at the Stephen Lawrence Research Centre at De Montfort University. Her work looks at British Muslim communities with a specific focus on the British Bangladeshi Muslim communities.
Follow her on Twitter:Â @DrFRajinaÂ
Have questions or comments? Email us at:Â editorial [email protected]
Opinions expressed in this article remain those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The New Arab, its editorial board or staff.
