For years, the radical left across the West has styled itself as a defender of inclusion and multicultural ideals. It has often aligned with Islam and groups seen as standing against established power. Among these, support for Islam, especially its conservative strands, has grown into a puzzling and risky project.

This bond is built on shared opposition to Western traditions and claims of imperialism. Yet it masks a clear clash. Core left-wing blocs, such as LGBTQ campaigners, feminists, and supporters of gender fluidity, disagree with key tenets of orthodox Islamic doctrine and Sharia.

At the same time, relaxed migration policies have helped create segregated pockets that reject mainstream norms, driving conflict with the very values the left promotes.

This piece outlines why the left’s alignment with conservative Islam could weaken its base, fracture its message, and strengthen groups that resist integration and reject progressive priorities.

Fragile Allies and a Contradictory Pact

In Western Europe and North America, the radical left champions those it views as marginalised. That includes LGBTQ people, women pushing for fair treatment, and those who reject fixed gender roles.

These movements have worked for decades to shift laws and culture. Yet the left’s support for Islam as a foil to Western conservatism has created a clear contradiction. Conservative Islamic teaching often rejects the ideals that these groups hold dear.

Traditional readings of the Quran and Hadith, and systems based on Sharia in several Muslim-majority states, condemn homosexual acts, uphold strict gender roles, and do not recognise gender fluidity. In places such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, same-sex relations can bring prison, lashings, or death.

Women face limits on dress, movement, and autonomy that clash with feminist aims. Ideas like non-binary identities or self-selected pronouns do not appear in classical Islamic theology, which rests on a binary view rooted in biological sex.

Even so, many on the radical left frame Muslim communities as targets of bias who need protection from what they call Islamophobia. The argument leans on a shared stance against Western hegemony, capitalism, and Judeo-Christian norms.

Supporters claim Muslims in the West face systemic unfairness and belong in the same camp as other disadvantaged groups. This ignores a hard truth. Many conservative Muslim migrants do not share progressive ideals. They often arrive with beliefs and customs that sit at odds with a liberal, egalitarian vision.

Open Borders, Parallel Lives

A major outcome of these policies has been the growth of segregated Muslim areas, especially in parts of Europe. In the name of multiculturalism, leaders on the left backed large-scale migration from Muslim-majority countries with little insistence on integration. Sweden, Germany, France, and the United Kingdom each saw districts where Islamic norms prevail and mainstream expectations lose ground.

Sweden, once seen as a model for progressive rule, is a case often cited. Reports refer to “no-go zones” in cities like Malmö and Stockholm. These districts, with heavy migration from the Middle East and North Africa, are portrayed as hard to police and resistant to state authority.

Commentators link higher rates of violent crime and sexual assault to poor integration and cultural divides. In 2023, Sweden was reported to have seen a 30% rise in violent crime in migrant-heavy areas compared with a decade earlier, sparking anger over border and policing policy.

France’s banlieues tell a similar story. The 2005 riots after the deaths of two teenagers exposed deep fractures between the state and immigrant districts. Later attacks on police and public buildings reinforced concerns about cohesion.

In the UK, parts of London, such as Tower Hamlets, and areas of Birmingham, have seen the growth of Sharia councils. These bodies issue guidance on family matters that can conflict with British law.

These divides did not appear by chance. They followed policies that put cultural relativism ahead of shared norms. Nervous about accusations of racism, officials often ignored practices that conflict with liberal values. Forced marriage, so-called honour crimes, and strict dress rules for women each sit in that category. By failing to demand integration, the left has boosted groups that resist the freedoms it claims to defend.

Turning Away from Western Norms

In many of these enclaves, leaders push not for integration but for the spread of Islamic standards. Sharia’s influence has grown in some places, with calls for its use in family and civil disputes. In the UK, Sharia councils have issued rulings on divorce, custody, and inheritance. Critics say these rulings sideline women’s rights and clash with British legal principles.

Cultural resistance reaches beyond the courts. Pew Research surveys in Germany in 2022 found that many first-generation Muslim migrants view Islamic values as superior to Western ones.

Around 40% of Muslim respondents said Sharia should outrank secular law on family and moral issues. Similar views appear in France, Belgium, and the Netherlands, where large Muslim populations express distrust of free speech protections and gender equality as liberal ideals.

This resistance shows up in daily life. Some newcomers avoid the local language and set up separate institutions. Islamic schools and mosques sometimes promote conservative teaching and limited contact with wider society.

In Sweden, critics accused certain Islamic schools of separating girls and boys, discouraging ties with non-Muslims, and favouring religious instruction over secular study. Such practices deepen isolation and lock in division across generations.

A Blind Spot that Weakens the Message

The left’s support for conservative Islamic communities exposes a deep inconsistency. By branding Muslims as an oppressed bloc, activists sidestep issues where traditional Islamic norms collide with progressive aims. Feminists who attack patriarchy in Western culture often avoid criticizing similar structures in conservative Islamic teaching.

LGBTQ groups that demand acceptance for non-binary people rarely address the danger faced by queer Muslims in both Muslim-majority countries and conservative Western communities.

This selective concern erodes trust. When leaders defend the hijab as a pure choice, they often ignore social pressure. A 2021 European Network Against Racism study reported that 60% of hijab-wearing Muslim women in France felt pushed by family or community to wear it. Yet critics of compulsory veiling are often dismissed as Islamophobic, closing debate and splitting the feminist movement.

The same pattern appears on LGBTQ issues. In 2019, protests by Muslim parents in Birmingham against LGBTQ-inclusive lessons showed the conflict between progressive goals and traditional beliefs. Many on the left chose to avoid the fight, putting a fragile alliance ahead of commitments to equality in education.

The Electoral Cost

The political bill for this strategy is growing. A focus on multiculturalism over integration has alienated parts of the working class. Many feel their culture, safety, and economic prospects are being ignored. Across Europe, this has fed populist and nationalist parties that promise to fix border control and restore order. Alternatives for Germany, France’s National Rally, and the Sweden Democrats have all grown by speaking to these concerns.

In the United States, the pattern is subtler but present. Figures such as Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib speak for Muslim inclusion, yet face criticism for downplaying rights abuses in some Muslim-majority states. That double standard puts off moderate voters who want a consistent defence of liberal values.

The trend showed in the 2024 European Parliament elections. Parties on the right made major gains as migration and identity led the debate. Marine Le Pen’s National Rally took around 30% of the vote in France. AfD rose to second place in several German states. Voters signalled that they see the left’s priorities as distant from their own.

A Movement at Risk of Undoing Itself

The radical left’s alliance with conservative Islam may prove self-defeating. Backing groups that reject progressive norms risk losing feminists, LGBTQ activists, and gender nonconformists who fear a rollback of rights. Its refusal to confront the social strains caused by parallel communities has handed a narrative to opponents who promise security and cohesion.

There is an irony here. In seeking to dismantle Western traditions, the left has empowered a force that can weaken its own agenda. Without an honest reckoning with the clash between progressive ideals and conservative Islamic doctrine, the movement will keep bleeding support. Segregation will deepen, culture wars will harden, and populist rivals will grow stronger.

To survive, the left must match its talk of diversity with a clear defence of liberal principles. It must insist on integration, equal rights under one law, and open debate on coercive practices. Anything less risks ceding ground to opponents and losing the trust of the very people it claims to represent.

Related News:

Mosque Fire in Spain Highlights Growing Anti-Muslim Tensions

OSLO, Norway — The Norwegian Nobel Committee awarded the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize to María Corina Machado on Friday, a clear nod to democratic resistance and a quiet rejection of one of the world’s most divisive leaders. The Venezuelan opposition figure has inspired millions with a hard-line stance against Nicolás Maduro’s rule.

The announcement, buzzed about through betting chatter and political whispers, recognizes her drive for free elections and civil rights in a country crushed by repression, economic ruin, and widespread abuses. The timing, only days after U.S. President Donald J. Trump announced a delicate Gaza ceasefire, set off heated debate. Critics say the committee ignored a major U.S. diplomatic move because of bias against Trump.

Machado, 56, an engineer and former lawmaker often called the Iron Lady of Venezuela, was honored for promoting democratic freedoms and pushing for a peaceful shift from dictatorship to democracy. The committee’s citation praised her persistence.

Speaking from a secure location in hiding, after evading Maduro’s forces since a disputed July vote, she fought back tears during a video call with Nobel Institute Director Kristian Berg Harpviken. “Oh my God… I have no words,” she said, her voice breaking.

Machado Lives in Constant Danger

She has survived threats, attempts on her life, and a sweeping manhunt. Later on X, formerly Twitter, she dedicated the award to “the suffering people of Venezuela” and thanked Trump for “decisive support of our cause,” linking her struggle to the U.S. president’s foreign policy efforts.

The choice highlights her influence within a split opposition. Banned from running in the 2024 presidential race on contested corruption claims, she backed Edmundo González Urrutia.

His apparent win was tossed by Maduro’s electoral body, a move condemned by the U.S., the European Union, and many in Latin America. Her nationwide organizing kept nonviolent resistance alive, with huge rallies despite violent crackdowns. More than 7 million people have left Venezuela since 2015, creating one of the largest displacement crises outside war.

“Venezuela’s tragedy is a warning to the world about how peace collapses when democracy weakens,” said Jørgen Watne Frydnes, the committee’s chair, at the Oslo event.

He said Machado reflects the goals in Alfred Nobel’s will: fraternity between nations, disarmament, and convening peace efforts. “She unified a fragmented opposition and stood firm against the militarization of Venezuelan society,” he added.

The award carries 11 million Swedish kronor, about 1.05 million dollars, and will be presented on December 10 in Oslo. Her attendance is unclear, given her status as a fugitive under Maduro’s rule.

Trump Overshadowed

The honor also overshadowed the name that dominated prediction lists for months, President Trump. The 45th and 47th U.S. president, now in a second term, had pressed their case for recognition, calling their record unmatched on global stability.

This week, he announced a U.S.-brokered first phase ceasefire in Gaza, with hostage releases and aid routes, and called it the end of “the forever war in the Middle East.” Earlier this year, his team helped cool tensions between India and Pakistan.

He also leveled tough sanctions on Russian oligarchs, which supporters say nudged Moscow toward talks on Ukraine. Supporters described a scenario where he ends conflicts from Yemen to Sudan, then launches a “Global Harvest Initiative” to end hunger. Even in that case, they argue, the committee would still pass him over, given its past decisions.

Backers say this view comes from a history of bias. The Norwegian Nobel Committee, made up of former Norwegian politicians, is often cast as Eurocentric and progressive. Critics point to mixed calls over the years, from the controversy around Henry Kissinger’s award in 1973 to Barack Obama’s 2009 prize for diplomacy early in his first term.

Trump’s blunt style, “America First” approach, and exit from the Paris climate accord clashed with the committee’s emphasis on multilateral cooperation. People familiar with the nomination process, speaking on background, said Trump’s Gaza work drew attention among allies, but worries about trade wars and inflammatory rhetoric weighed more. “For them, peace is not just about stopping wars, it is about values,” said one diplomat in Oslo.

Trump Deserves Credit

Expectation around Trump was high, fueled partly by Trump himself. At a May rally in Ohio, he said, “I’ve done more for peace than anyone since Carter, maybe Wilson. The Nobel? It’s coming, folks, believe me.” Allies, including Sen. Marco Rubio, pushed a nomination letter calling him “the dealmaker the world needs.” Machado also credited Trump’s sanctions for weakening Maduro’s grip in earlier interviews.

A September Pew Research poll found that 62 percent of Americans thought Trump deserved credit for Middle East progress, a view echoed in conservative media. Betting markets then swung to Machado overnight, from single digits to heavy favorite, prompting a probe into potential leaks. After the announcement, the White House responded briefly, “While we congratulate Ms. Machado, this decision places politics over peace.”

Anger on the left toward Trump has soared after his 2024 win and battles over the Supreme Court. Progressive outlets like The Guardian dismissed his nomination as self-promotion. European NGOs lobbied the committee with petitions against him.

A 2025 YouGov survey found unfavorable views among U.S. liberals at 92 percent, near post-Watergate Nixon levels. In Oslo’s political circles, that mood translated into a flat no. “The committee values quiet heroism over bombast,” a spokesperson said. Critics called it elitist gatekeeping.

Trump Congratulates Machado on Peace Prize

Despite the snub, Trump made a courteous move. According to CBS News, he called Machado on Friday evening to congratulate her. “You deserve this more than anyone. Keep fighting, and know America’s got your back,” he told her. He then reposted her message on Truth Social, writing, “Honored. María is a warrior for freedom.

Together, we’ll make Venezuela great again!” The exchange showed a rare pairing, Trump’s hard-nosed approach aligning with Machado’s moral stand. Francisco Palmieri, the U.S. Ambassador to the OAS, said the call showed “strategic solidarity” against authoritarian rulers in the region.

The news ricocheted across Venezuela. State media in Caracas called the award a “right-wing plot.” Opposition areas erupted in cautious celebration, with fireworks in Maracaibo and graffiti in Valencia reading, “María Nobel, Maduro Out.”

The decision will likely sharpen calls to isolate Maduro. The EU signaled new sanctions, and Brazil’s President Lula da Silva urged dialogue, despite his reluctance to confront Maduro. For exiles in Miami and Madrid, the prize felt like vindication after years of hunger, hyperinflation, and mass arrests.

As attention shifts to the ceremony, Machado’s path stands out. She is a mother of two who left business life for street protests and daily risk. Her prize is not just a medal, it is a signal boost for Venezuelans who feel forgotten.

Trump, ever mindful of status, may bristle at the outcome. Yet in Machado’s public thanks, he found a nod to his role. In a world still scarred by conflict, the award suggests that defenders of democracy, not only dealmakers, help light the way.

Related News:

Trump’s Ukraine Peace Push Met with Mainstream Media Maelstrom

CAPE TOWN, South Africa – In Washington, D.C., federal officials worry about “Schedule F,” a Trump-era idea revived to reclassify thousands of career officials as political appointees. In London, Nigel Farage’s Reform UK agitates for a “power project” to seed ministries with ideological loyalists. Across the democratic world, the professional civil service is under siege, its neutrality recast as a weakness.

Yet in Pretoria, something rare is unfolding. South Africa, a younger democracy, is doing the opposite. Its Public Service Amendment Bill (PSAB), now on the cusp of being passed by the National Council of Provinces (NCOP) following recent deliberations, aims to hard-wire professionalism into law.

It removes hiring and firing powers from ministers, hands them to career officials, and bars senior civil servants from holding party posts. In effect, South Africa is trying to legislate the very separation between politics and administration that older democracies are busy dismantling.

The Ghosts of State Capture

This move is a direct response to South Africa’s recent past. The country is still recovering from the era of “state capture,” a period when powerful networks of political elites and private business interests systematically looted state resources and hollowed out key institutions. A key enabler was the notorious policy of cadre deployment: appointing loyal party comrades to public posts, regardless of merit.

The PSAB’s design is surgical, targeting the pressure points where patronage seeps in.

What the Bill Actually Does

The headline reform transfers key human-resources powers from ministers to professional heads of department. Hiring, promotion, performance management, and disciplinary action for senior officials will be handled by Directors-General, not political bosses.

“Why would you have heads of departments if you are not going to give them their responsibility and hold them accountable?” quips Advocate Kholeka Gcaleka, the country’s Public Protector, in support of the change.

For Gcaleka, who has investigated countless cases of capture and abuse, this is a long-overdue correction: ministers will set policy and monitor delivery, while directors-general will actually run departments day-to-day and be held accountable for results.

The companion reform is a clear barrier between senior administrators and party politics. Section 36A of the PSAB will prohibit Directors-General, provincial heads, and those directly reporting to them from holding office in a political party. This is a targeted ban aimed at the very top echelons, a compromise after an earlier draft sought to ban all 1.2 million public servants from party positions.

Labour unions, led by COSATU’s Mathew Parks, blasted the early version as unconstitutional overreach, forcing the compromise that narrowed restrictions to top managers. That, says Parks, “is rational and fair and can pass constitutional muster,” aligning with recent court rulings upholding similar limits for municipal managers.

For watchdogs like Gcaleka, the logic is simple: “How do you manage the political–administrative interface if, after you leave this room, you are equals?” If a Director-General is simultaneously a party baron, their loyalty to the public could be compromised. By neutralizing these conflicted loyalties, the reform aims to ensure that senior officials serve the constitution, not party HQ.

An Independent Referee

This internal balance is reinforced by an external one. In parallel to the PSAB, lawmakers are advancing changes to strengthen the Public Service Commission (PSC), transforming it into a fully independent Chapter 9 institution with investigative and enforcement powers.

As DA lawmaker Jan Naudé de Villiers, who chairs Parliament’s portfolio committee on public service, put it, without an independent referee, meritocracy remains theoretical. The PSC’s enhanced powers give the new rules bite, deterring political overreach and giving administrators a lawful shield when they refuse improper instruction.

The Reformer’s Voice in South Africa

South Africa’s recent history proved that blurring the line between party and state breeds corruption and ineffectiveness. “The historical record provides overwhelming evidence that where democracies fuse the political and administrative, they tend towards corruption and ineffectiveness,” argues Ivor Chipkin, a public scholar of more than 30 years and executive director of the New South Institute (NSI), contending that truly autonomous, professional bureaucracies are what allow democracies to translate mandates into results.

Few people embody both the challenges and promise of reform like Yoliswa Makhasi. After 25 years in the public service, including a term as Director-General of the Department of Public Service and Administration (DPSA), she now directs the Public Service Reform Programme at the NSI.

In a 22 July hearing before Parliament’s upper house, the National Council of Provinces, Makhasi described the Public Service Amendment Bill as “a critical institutional advancement,” arguing that the state’s performance has long been undermined by blurred lines between political and administrative authority. For Makhasi, these episodes—highlighted by the Zondo Commission at state-owned entities like Eskom and Transnet—show why insulating the civil service from partisan leverage is essential.

The Bill, she argues, is designed precisely to prevent such interference, regardless of which party is in office. Her point is not abstract. It flows from years of watching how even well-intentioned political interventions can unravel carefully built capacity, and how decent administrators can be sidelined when partisan considerations intrude upon hiring, promotion, and dismissal.

Lessons Written in Scars

South Africa’s appetite for institutional hardening is not ideological; it is born of bitter experience. Over the past decade, a sprawling corruption network—exposed in detail by the Zondo Commission of Inquiry—showed how patronage appointments eroded state capacity. Eskom, the national power utility, was driven to the brink of collapse, triggering rolling blackouts that hobbled the economy.

Transnet, the freight-rail operator, faltered as contracts were captured by cronies. Even the South African Revenue Service, once a model for the continent, lost expertise and credibility after politically connected officials were installed at the top. The pattern was clear: when political loyalty eclipses competence, accountability unravels and institutions buckle.

Unlike countries that inherited professional civil services long ago and now take them for granted, South Africa treats professionalism as a fragile, hard-won achievement that must be protected in law. The PSAB is not the start but the codification of a long policy journey.

It follows the 2022 Framework for the Professionalization of the Public Service, which sketched the philosophy and standards for recruitment, development, and accountability. Where that framework provided strategy, the PSAB provides legal mechanisms designed to endure beyond any single administration.

During a recent webinar, Deputy Minister Pinky Kekana stressed that professionalization needs firm legal grounding and cannot be left to policy instruments alone.

Democratic Maturity as Debate

If democratic maturity is the habit of arguing in public about important things, then the NCOP hearings are a case study. Six provinces, including Gauteng and Limpopo, have already signalled their support for the Bill, while three, KwaZulu-Natal, Free State, and the Western Cape, are holding out.

The Western Cape, South Africa’s best-performing province by many metrics, has raised constitutional concerns that the Bill risks creating accountability without authority – a classic governance paradox.

Yet this is not obstructionism; it is part of the process. South Africa’s provinces are constitutionally empowered to scrutinize national laws, propose amendments, and test their resilience against different governance models.

The Bill’s authors answer by pointing to Schedule 2 (retained executive levers) and to the logic that professional appointments, insulated from partisan influence, ultimately make executive accountability more meaningful: politicians are judged for policy and oversight, administrators are judged for execution, and both sets of judgments are clear.

The contrast with cruder arguments for patronage is striking. When Bathabile Dlamini, a former minister and ANC women’s league former president, recently defended the practice of “rewarding loyal members with positions” as necessary for party cohesion, she gave voice to a worldview the Bill explicitly repudiates: the state exists for the public, not for party networks.

The very fact that South Africa is publicly wrestling with where to draw the line rather than doubling down on loyalty rewards is itself a marker of institutional health.

Why This Matters Beyond South Africa

Seen in a vacuum, the PSAB might read like bureaucratic housekeeping. Seen against global trends, it reads like a counter-narrative. Where some democracies are exploring how to politicize their permanent bureaucracies, South Africa is exploring how to de-politicize its own. Where others treat the apolitical civil service as an obstacle to be tamed, South Africa treats it as a public good to be protected.

This is not to say the country is blind to the dangers of an unaccountable bureaucracy. Quite the opposite: Schedule 2 explicitly empowers political executives to act against failing administration, but within a rule-bound process that aims to prevent vendetta politics. The idea is not to create a priesthood beyond scrutiny; it is to create a professional corps bound by skills, standards, and law.

The wider African context underscores that institutional innovation is not the monopoly of wealthy democracies. Rwanda’s Imihigo performance contracts have aligned incentives with results; Kenya’s digitized Huduma centres have streamlined service delivery and cut opportunities for petty patronage; and, within South Africa, the Western Cape’s performance culture shows that professionalization pays. The PSAB is an attempt to legislate those lessons nationally, knitting together merit, accountability, and an independent referee.

The Human Stakes: Service Delivery and Trust

While it is tempting to treat a bill about appointments and schedules as technical, said de Villiers. “The human consequences of administrative weakness are felt in clinics without medicine, classrooms without teachers, water systems that fail, roads that crumble, and permits that never arrive.”

South Africans do not experience “governance failure” in footnotes. They live it in rolling blackouts, in watching ambulances arrive too late, in permits that never materialize. The PSAB’s wager is that competence beats proximity: that an administrator promoted for skill and track record will steward systems better than one promoted because a party committee deemed them loyal.

Institutional memory is an asset, acting appointments and constant churn destroy it. Clear lines of authority help fix problems faster; blurred lines ensure that everyone is “in charge” and no one is responsible. If the reforms work as designed, citizens, not officials, are the ultimate beneficiaries.

Politicians vs Professionals: Striking a Balance

Reforming the engine of government inevitably stirs debate about power and accountability. Not everyone is cheering the diminution of ministerial influence. The Western Cape Government (WCG), run by the opposition Democratic Alliance (DA), has emerged as one of the most vocal critics of the Public Service Amendment Bill—somewhat unexpectedly, given the DA’s loud opposition to ANC cadre deployment.

Dr Harry Malila, the province’s Director-General, warns that stripping ministers of hiring powers could reduce them to bystanders. “How can executives be held accountable if they can’t choose their own top team?” he asks. The WCG broadly supports professionalization but opposes the Bill in its current form, arguing that devolving HR management from executives to heads of department limits oversight and risks weakening governance coherence under section 125 of the Constitution. During submissions, the province advocated for clearer definitions (e.g., of the Minister’s ‘functional area’) and a balanced approach.

Supporters of the reform counter that accountability is not lost, it is just being realigned. Under the new system, Ministers will still set the strategic direction and can hold Directors-General to account via performance agreements and oversight mechanisms.

Crucially, the Bill explicitly provides a process for Ministers to intervene if a DG is underperforming; they may issue a directive and ultimately recommend dismissal if incompetence is proven. This was a deliberate concession to avoid creating untouchable mandarins.

De Villiers, who also chairs Parliament’s portfolio committee on public service, explains: “You don’t want a situation where every time a new minister comes in, they just fire the DG to bring in their own people—that creates instability. But the minister can still write a directive to a DG and say, you are failing at your job,” triggering an inquiry and potential removal.

Some purists wanted no political involvement at all in firing officials, “but I personally feel the ability of an executive authority to actually hold a DG to account must be legislated… when done correctly it is not political overreach.” De Villiers envisions the strengthened PSC stepping in as an independent watchdog to investigate any frivolous ministerial actions, ensuring checks and balances.

Should the Bill become law, Malila anticipates the first tangible improvement for Western Cape residents as greater consistency and speed in filling critical senior management positions, streamlining recruitment and enhancing service continuity.

As America toys with politicizing its bureaucracy and Britain entertains loyalist staffing schemes, South Africa is betting that democracy’s durability rests not on party muscle, but on the quiet competence of those who serve.

By:  Fidelis Zvomuya, New South Institute

Related News:

China’s Multi-Billion Dollar Push to Shape U.S. Media and Academia