The political influence of an interest group: A comparative study on the Muslim minority in the United States and Britain

The study investigates why government policies toward Muslim minority citizens differ between the United Kingdom and the United States and posits that the key explanatory mechanism is the relative political and electoral power of these communities. Situated within the special relationship of the two countries and their global influence, the article argues that Britain recognizes and empowers a distinct Muslim community with significant political leverage, while the US neither recognizes a distinct Muslim minority nor grants it political salience. The research question centers on how political power—operationalized through electoral strength and mobilization—shapes policy application toward Muslim minorities. Covering 2000–2020, the paper advances the hypothesis that the Muslim minority’s political and electoral strength is substantially greater in Britain than in the US, and that this difference contributes to divergent policy outcomes toward Muslim citizens. The study underscores the importance of incorporating political power into analyses of policy formation and implementation in comparative politics and international relations.

The paper defines policy (Campbell, 2002) as a system guiding decision-making and notes that mainstream international relations and policy theories—regime theory, class analysis, framing, and constructivism—do not sufficiently link a group’s domestic political power to government policy directed at that group. Existing scholarship touches on five factors relevant to Muslim minorities but often treats them independently of electoral power: (1) colonial legacies (Skinner, 2009; Anderson & Killingray, 2017; Brown & Louis, 1999; Palagashvili, 2018), (2) demographics and migration-politics linkages (Helbling & Meierrieks, 2020; Huysmans, 2006; Messina, 2014), (3) identity formation and politicization (Silvestri, 2007; Gurr, 2000), (4) integration policies and their political implications (Entzinger & Biezeveld, 2003; Hjelmgaard, 2017), and (5) the influence of the Muslim lobby and external actors (Hussain, 2004; Tyler et al., 2010; Radcliffe, 2004; Grzegorzewski, 2014). The literature suggests intuitive effects of these factors on political outcomes but rarely connects them systematically to the electoral power of Muslim minorities. The article addresses this gap by analyzing how these five factors relate to political influence and policy application in the UK and US.

Comparative case study of the United Kingdom and the United States covering 2000–2020, employing process tracing to connect five explanatory factors (colonial legacy, demographics, identity, integration policy, and lobby/interest group influence) to observed policy outcomes toward Muslim minorities. Data sources include primary materials such as government statements and responses, policy texts and implementation records, official statistics, state plans, and public opinion polls, alongside existing theoretical and empirical literature. The method traces causal pathways showing how the political/electoral strength of Muslim minorities differentially influences policy in each country.

- Colonial legacy: Britain’s imperial history familiarized the state with Islam and incorporated Muslims into colonial administration, facilitating later political participation and recognition; over 400,000 Muslim soldiers fought for Britain in WWII. US early encounters (e.g., Barbary Wars) fostered a defensive posture and de-emphasized Muslims domestically, contributing to limited political salience. - Demographics: UK Muslims have grown from about 1.6 million (2.71%) in 2001 to 2.7 million (4.4%) in 2011, concentrated in key cities (e.g., London, Birmingham, Bradford, Luton, Blackburn), enhancing electoral leverage. Muslims influence vote swings in around 50 constituencies; reported turnout is 47% vs 65% general public. In the US, Muslims were about 1.221% in 2001; the community is highly diverse (approx. 25% African American, 24% white, 18% Asian, 18% Arab, 7% mixed race, 5% Hispanic), 86% citizens and about half native-born, but dispersed and demographically small, limiting electoral clout. - Identity: In Britain, a strong Muslim identity is supported by policies and legislation enabling public religious practice (e.g., Education Reform Act 1988 mandating religious education; recognition of Sharia-compliant wills in 2014 contexts; Localism Act 2011 enabling local autonomy), reinforcing communal distinctiveness and political bargaining. In the US, Muslims tend to identify as American first and Muslim second, prioritize integration and acculturation, and exhibit higher secular civic engagement, reducing incentives for identity-based political mobilization. - Integration policy: UK integration has been fragmented and locally driven, often reinforcing separation through measures like the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, local equality initiatives, the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal, and the Localism Act 2011; political actors court Muslim votes by accommodating community preferences. In the US, integration is universalistic and assimilationist; public institutions (e.g., schools) promote dominant civic norms. Despite successful socioeconomic integration in the US, numerous anti-sharia legislative initiatives (201 bills in 43 states since 2010) underscore the low policy leverage of Muslim advocacy. - Lobby/interest group influence: In the UK, organizations such as the Muslim Council of Britain mobilize voters and leverage electoral promises (e.g., Ten Key Pledges), with observable impacts on elections (e.g., shifts after Iraq War; rise of Respect Party in heavily Muslim areas; targeted campaigns in 2010). In the US, Muslim and Arab lobbies are fragmented, crisis-driven, and lack a unified domestic agenda; limited influence on foreign or domestic policy and negligible effect on voter turnout or partisan alignment beyond general Democratic leanings. Overall: The Muslim minority’s political/electoral power is substantially stronger in Britain, shaping policy accommodation of Muslim identity in the public sphere; in the US, weaker political salience correlates with policies that do not recognize a distinct Muslim communal status.

The findings support the central hypothesis that differences in the political and electoral strength of Muslim minorities help explain divergent policy applications in the UK and US. In Britain, historical familiarity with Islam, demographic concentration in key constituencies, institutionalized support for religious identity, and active interest group mobilization converge to create tangible electoral leverage. Political parties respond with legislation and local accommodations, reinforcing a feedback loop between identity-based organization and policy outputs. In the US, the small, heterogeneous, and dispersed Muslim population identifies primarily with a broader American civic identity, participates in mainstream political channels, and lacks a unified lobby. As a result, policymakers have limited incentive to design policies recognizing a distinct Muslim communal status, and legislative activity often restricts rather than expands religious legal recognition. These dynamics illustrate how political power—particularly electoral relevance—mediates the translation of social factors (history, demography, identity, integration regimes) into concrete policy, refining existing theories by foregrounding the political variable in policy implementation.

The article advances a political-power-centered framework for understanding policy toward minority groups, demonstrating that Muslim minorities’ electoral strength is a key determinant of policy application in Britain and the US. In the UK, recognition and empowerment of a distinct Muslim community align with its capacity to influence elections and secure accommodative policies. In the US, the absence of a distinct communal political presence corresponds with policies that prioritize universal civic integration and limit religious legal recognition. The study contributes by integrating electoral and political power into analyses of policy formation and suggests future research compare other meaningful groups across countries to assess how governments respond to varying configurations of minority political influence.