Rohan Giri Prior to the UK general elections, a media investigation revealed that five of the six major British political parties had taken illicit foreign funds. To minimise excessive foreign influence, British legislation compels parties to refund unlawful donations within 30 days and disclose any failures to the Electoral Commission. Only people on the electoral roll can make donations, with a minimum limit of £500. However, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism discovered that the Conservative Party, Reform UK, Liberal Democrats, Green Party, and Scottish National Party failed to prevent or identify these donations, which were made through an assortment of modest payments totalling more than £500 from a foreign source. As per the report, only the Labour Party successfully blocked such unlawful donations. Election law expert Gavin Millar criticised the self-policing method as ineffective and illogical because it relies on beneficiaries to enforce the law. Concerns had grown in the run-up to the 2024 UK general election about foreign players funding political non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Despite precise laws deliberate to prevent excessive foreign influence, some NGOs with significant influence in UK politics have evidently received large amounts of funding from international sources. These contributions, which are frequently routed through intricate channels to avoid detection, undermine the integrity of the democratic process and threaten to influence election results in favour of foreign interests. The current legal system, which relies mainly on self-policing, is deeply inadequate, allowing foreign funders to have hidden power over British politics. Several controversial groups in the British community receive funding from ambiguous sources, which they utilize to spread their propaganda and operations throughout the country. One prominent example is Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), an umbrella group that represents over 500 interconnected mosques and Muslim organizations. MCB has a notorious history of sponsoring and supporting extremist actions, prompting consecutive British administrations to adopt a “non-engagement” stance with the organization since 2009. Notably, the MCB backed a declaration in Istanbul calling for jihad in reaction to Israel’s activities in Gaza and backing Hamas attacks on foreign forces, possibly involving British troops. Another outfit of concern is Hizb ut-Tahrir, which is secretively operational in the UK despite being banned in many countries due to its disruptive ideology and links to terrorist acts. Hizb ut-Tahrir has been accused of radicalising young Muslims and pushing for the formation of a global caliphate through non-democratic means. Its financing roots are opaque, leading to suspicions of foreign financial aid intended to destabilise communities. Islamic Relief Worldwide, headquartered in the United Kingdom, has been accused of supporting terrorist entities, especially Hamas. However, the organization denies the accusations. Israel and the United Arab Emirates, have blacklisted for the concerns about the misuse of charitable donations to help terrorists. Furthermore, CAGE, a UK-based advocacy group, has made headlines for its provocative viewpoints and possible ties to terrorists. The entity openly advocated for the prominent figures such as Dr Aafia Siddiqui who is serving an 86-year jail term for the attempted murder of an FBI agent in disputed circumstances. She is an al-Qaeda sympathiser. Also, they advocated for Anwar al-Awlaki, an American-born cleric of Yemeni descent, who was a key figure in al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). While CAGE professes to advocate for human rights, its support of high-profile terrorists and receipt of foreign financing have sparked investigation and criticism from a number of sources, including the British government. The Islamic community in the United Kingdom has considerable influence on the political mandate because of its large population and active involvement in societal and political concerns. British Muslims contribute to the electorate’s diversity of approaches, influencing policy discussions over immigration, foreign policy, and community welfare. The community’s participation in voting and political discourse ensures that the problems and demands of a sizeable portion of the people are addressed. This impact, however, can be destroyed by organizations and people that mislead or manipulate the community to advance their own objectives. Extremist organizations in the UK have not only attacked non-Islamic communities, as evidenced by the attacks on Hindus in Leicester, but are also actively influencing political circumstances ahead of the general elections. These organizations mobilise Muslim voters and lobby for certain political positions, such as supporting Palestinians and calling for a cease-fire in the Israel-Hamas conflict. According to studies, these organizations use societal tensions and global conflicts to acquire influence, which frequently results in heightened division and violence. The ubiquitous influence of these extremist groups emphasises the critical need for tougher measures to resist their activities and preserve the democratic process from being hijacked by radical ideology. In 2017, the Henry Jackson Society emphasised the importance of foreign money in spreading Islamist extremism in Britain. They noted that money, mostly from government-linked foundations in the Gulf and Iran, has supported the spread of extremist notions, particularly Saudi Arabia’s multimillion-dollar initiatives since the 1960s to promote Wahhabism. In the United Kingdom, the funds have taken the form of endowments for mosques and Islamic educational institutions that have hosted extremist preachers and distributed radical material. British Muslim religious leaders who have received training in Saudi Arabia, as well as the use of Saudi textbooks in Islamic schools in the United Kingdom, contribute to this effect. Many of Britain’s most infamous Islamist hate preachers are tied to foreign financing, which has contributed to the radicalisation of many who have joined jihadist groups in Iraq and Syria. Foreign funds pose a serious threat to the UK’s democratic values, as proven by recent exposes of illegal donations to major political parties and the influence of extremist organizations. Despite rules aimed at preventing undue foreign influence, the inability of a structured legal framework to ban illegal donations highlights the shortcomings of the current self-policing system. Furthermore, foreign funding by political NGOs and extremist groups undermines the legitimacy of the democratic process. These organizations use societal tensions and global crises to advance their objectives by propagating extreme beliefs and disrupting communities. (Author is a doctoral fellow at Amity University in Gwalior, content manager
