Is the media campaign against Keith Vaz racist? And should an MP accept special responsibilities to his own ethnic group? John Lloyd reports

The evidence against Keith Vaz, still the minister for Europe as we went to press, is sketchy and largely unproven. But his charge that these allegations are racially biased, and his claim that, as a minister of Asian origin, he inevitably plays a representational role for all Asians, are a matter of record. They may prove much more damaging to his party and to politics after (or if) his wrongdoing is established or disproved.

Vaz has said that he suspects that the media "campaign" against him may be racially motivated. On 6 February, he received support on this view from a group of public figures of (largely) Asian origin, in a letter to the Guardian and the Daily Mirror. They attacked the "obsessive campaign of denigration", and feared "for its long-term impact on the good community relations we have fought so hard to achieve . . . we have had to overcome numerous obstacles on [our] way. As the present press campaign against Keith Vaz shows, such obstacles are by no means things of the past."

Charges of racism are serious - indeed, if proven, they can carry criminal penalties. Further, the view that a minister, or indeed an MP, represents a constituency other than that of his parliamentary seat, or the brief he commands in government, is not known to British parliamentary practice - nor to most others. These issues are of great importance to new Labour, which has insisted, with some justice, that it promotes the interests of minorities of all kinds. Indeed, Vaz's own elevation to ministerial status - first in the Lord Chancellor's Department, then to the Foreign Office - was promoted as evidence of commitment to diversity in government, and to the recognition of a multicultural Britain. Beyond Labour, all mainstream parties seek to give evidence of their openness to "diversity" - how much this conflicts with a "one-nation" view is a major debate within the Conservative Party.

Vaz is the third minister for Europe in the Foreign Office. Its first holder in this government was Doug Henderson, who was shifted to Defence and then out of government, and was said not to have mastered the brief. He was followed by Joyce Quin, who had shadowed the post in opposition, spoke good French and German, but was said to be "not sufficiently political" and was despatched to the back benches. Vaz, like Henderson, had neither the linguistic skills nor past expertise to draw on for the job; but his appointment was seen as "sending a message" to the Europeans that British Asians were so firmly rooted here that they could represent the country in European forums.

Both Henderson and Quin are members of groups that Labour has been anxious to promote. Henderson is a Scot, Quin a woman. However, their removal did not provoke any discussion on representational unfairness. The Vaz controversy, by contrast, is seen very much as an Asian question. The reasons why are disturbing.

The Asian community in the UK is now large and diverse - originating from widely differing parts of India, from Pakistan and from Bangladesh. It has a rapidly growing middle class, the younger members of which are typically born in the UK, and a wealthy upper class that, like the Hinduja brothers, often has business interests in both the Asian subcontinent and the UK. Vaz, however, is the only Asian to have made minister: as such, he is the focus of lobbying pressure from hundreds of organisations and thousands of individuals who see him as their man in government.

Lord Patel, a businessman and the head of a number of Muslim and other organ-isations in the Blackburn area, was one of the three main signatories of the Guardian/Mirror letter. He told me: "This is a community which does a great deal through socialising. I myself go to hundreds of events, invited by people I don't know - and I am honoured there. I am expected to take up their causes. The culture of our community is such that if you do not, people will think of you as one who has become big-headed and does not wish to help. That is very strong. So when people criticise Keith Vaz for this, they do not understand our culture."

Patel would not answer directly the question of whether the campaign against Vaz was racist, but said: "I do not understand why he is picked on when so many other politicians - [David] Steele, Michael Heseltine, Paddy Ashdown - went to their [the Hindujas'] parties and knew them. They invited thousands of people to their parties. Why only him?" Patel said that "any ethnic minority MP or minister should represent his community. Why not? It is a socialist thing, to represent the community."

Lord Desai, a former Labour spokesman in the Lords who teaches at the London School of Economics, has lately issued a complex message - that Vaz's innocence or guilt must be established, as for any other public figure, but that racist capital can be made of the charges. "It's true that the British press tend to go over the top on these things, but Keith, as an MP and a minister, cannot hide behind the cover of 'it's all racism'. Racism is a very big word. When a Bangladeshi mother takes her son to school in the East End and is attacked, that is racism. But this case? The press goes for people - like [David] Mellor, [Jonathan] Aitken and [Neil] Hamilton, and you have to defend yourself as you can. But I am worried that all Asians, especially Asian business people, are being tarred with the same brush as the Hindujas."

On the central issue of representation, there appears to be a sharp division of view between Patel, who argues that the duty of representation is one that is almost forced upon an ethnic minority MP, and Lord King, the leader of Sandwell Council and a co-signatory of the letter of support, who says it should not be so. "People do tend to come up to you at functions and ask you to take up their case. My practice in this is, as far as possible, to send them to their own councillors or MPs. I do not think I am in the council to represent Asian voters: it would be counter-productive and it is not right."

The issue goes to the heart of the debate about multiculturalism. The view proposed by Patel and apparently endorsed by Vaz is that an Asian minister has three duties - to his constituents, to his brief and to the Asian community. The view held by Desai and King is that this third "representation" may be enjoined by the culture, but is ultimately incompatible with the political system.

"I think," argues Desai, "that you do get MPs - and even ministers - representing wide constituencies. If one is known to specialise in the problems of the disabled, or pensioners, then he will attract that constituency. But that gives him no right to claim invulnerability from the law or investigation."

Desai's parallel with MPs who champion specific causes has been used by one of his colleagues, the London School of Economics (and Columbia) professor Brian Barry, in a recent and controversial work on multiculturalism (Culture and Equality, Polity, 2000). Barry argues that contemporary multicultural practice, which stresses the rights and separateness of ethnic minority and other communities within nation states, harms those governments that are most committed to the provision of greater social justice - the central plank of new Labour.

"I don't think there should be an objection to group-based rights and advantages as such," he says. "You could see the point of it for groups which, say, were particularly poor, or couldn't speak English. But the point would be their disadvantage, not their ethnicity. The aim would be to remove the disadvantage. After that, they would have in common with everyone else their citizenship. I also think it is wrong to excuse something by reference to the culture - to say that one must understand something because it is part of the culture to behave that way, as if that forgives everything."

This is a debate whose battle lines are more deeply drawn in the US than here. The practice of branding groups as "African" or "Asian" or "Jewish" before "American" reflects a political reality of ethnic groups competing in the market place for advantage, favour and visibility. It tends to produce, among such communities, a view that an individual from that group who is accused of a crime or involved in a scandal must be protected at all costs. The huge support that O J Simpson enjoyed among blacks, during a trial in which most non-black Americans thought him guilty, is a vivid example of this.

New Labour's approach to the issue has been a mishmash of good intentions, anxiety to correct past (and present) injustice, US-inspired multiculturalism and a desire to attract an Asian community that can be a source of electoral and financial support. This approach lacks a guiding strategy and, it would seem, an awareness of the limits and responsibilities of citizenship.

Citizenship is, indeed, at the bottom of this scandal - through the allegation, which has already des-troyed the political career of Peter Mandelson, that it was for sale. It is not yet clear if this allegation is true. It is clear, however, that citizenship finds it hard to survive where it is constantly Balkanised.

See Darcus Howe

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before you can comment on the website