87 2 their religious affiliation, who support gender equality, among those who share their views (Figure 6). Moreover, irrespective of the background of the voter or politician, politicians with policy positions related to religious freedom for Muslims, opposition to same-sex adoption and immigration tend to receive the lowest voting likelihood among voters who hold opposing opinions (Figure 6). For example, a candidate who advocates for policies supporting other religious freedom for Muslims, such as allowing the Islamic call to prayer to be heard in public spaces or allowing the construction of mosques, may also encounter heightened resistance from voters. Especially compared to policy positions on other topics, such as taxing the rich and gender equality. In a similar vein, a candidate who opposes same-sex adoption faces stronger backlash from voters who support LGBTQ+ rights and adoption equality as compared to disagreement on other topics. Additionally, policy positions related to immigration also generate low voting likelihoods among voters who hold opposing opinions. For instance, a candidate who advocates for strict immigration policies, such as border control and deportation, may also face a relatively low voting likelihood opposition from voters who prioritize inclusivity and diversity in immigration policies and vice versa. Religious freedoms, immigration and same-sex adoption are exactly the three issues that Muslim and nonreligious voters differ on the most in their personal opinions (Appendix 5). These outcomes underscore the challenges of implementing diversity in politics, as candidates who speak out on topics that aim to promote substantive representation for certain groups, such as Muslims, may face significant pushback from voters who do not share the same opinion. This reveals the dynamics at play in navigating policy positions, shared identity, and voter preferences, and the delicate balance that politicians must strike in representing diverse interests while also managing potential backlash from voters with opposing viewpoints. Notably, speaking out on topics such as gender equality and climate change lead to “representation by coincidence” (Gilens and Page, 2014): yes it leads to better substantive representation of Muslim voters, but only because they happen to agree to the same extent with non-religious citizens on this topic. Exactly on those three topics on which non-religious and Muslim voters differ, immigration, Islam, and same-sex adoption, the voting likelihoods are the lowest. This contributes to “suppressive representation” in which Muslim politicians are incentivized to vocally disagree with most Muslim voters (Aydemir and Vliegenthart, 2016, 2022) and contribute to feelings of betrayal and misrepresentation (Akachar et al., 2017; Anderson, 1997) on the part of Muslim citizens. In sum, 1) policy positions that exhibit divergent views between Muslims and nonreligious voters and 2) Muslim politicians often face significant pushback in politics, making it challenging to achieve descriptive, substantive and symbolic representation of Muslims. Indeed, Muslims and politicians voicing Muslim interests encounter pushback, which can result in their exclusion from political decision-making processes
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjY0ODMw