Why I am a Zianist

Zianism /ˈziːəˌnɪzəm/, noun: A political ideology and movement characterised by loyalty to the Reform UK politician Muhammad Ziauddin Yusuf

Zianism
/ˈziːəˌnɪzəm/
noun
A political ideology and movement characterised by loyalty to the Reform UK politician Muhammad Ziauddin Yusuf.

Muhammad Ziauddin Yusuf, mononymously known simply as ‘Zia’, has (in his short period of political activity) gifted consistent victories for, and achieved unprecedented influence within, Reform UK. For a man who essentially ‘spawned’ into being little over one year ago, with seemingly zero previously-established connections, he continues to outshine not just his opponents in enemy parties but detractors from his own side. Today, I proudly make the case for Zia being the most underappreciated politician in modern British history. I declare myself a Zianist, a Reform Friend of Yusuf, a lobbyist for his cause; the cause of political revolution and the regime change to follow. He is Reform’s greatest asset — except for, of course, The Leader himself: Nigel Farage.

When Zia was first announced as Reform UK’s party chairman, I shrugged him off as another Racism Accusation Deflector Shield, a convenient token figurehead, that I had to assume was personal friends with Nigel and so could be trusted to be loyal to both Nigel and the cause. I had seen Nigel pull such stunts before, least subtle of all being the time he gathered as many of his BAME UKIP council candidates as he could into one room.

In the immediate aftermath of Zia’s appointment, I was glad to see the most flippant, snarky and bigoted cross-sections of the Right decry it as some kind of malevolent kitman plot on Zia’s part that Nigel was being fooled into giving way to. He was at least filtering out scoffing, armchair racists that couldn’t stomach backing a party with a ‘brown’ chairman, so Reform was already getting some organic quality control by his mere presence. But I still thought very little of what contribution he could give to the party. For a long period of time, up until what we will call ‘The Farage-Lowe Feud’, he was just the butt of some very repetitive jokes on my part — making fun of his strange attempt when he would give speeches to imitate John F. Kennedy’s cadence.

Beneath the caricature of a malevolent ex-Goldman Sachs employee is a highly competent individual who is singularly invested in changing politics for good. The more interesting parts of his past are often overlooked — being the son of a socialist paediatrician, being someone who protested the Iraq War, and being someone who supported Barack Obama in 2008. Oddly, it actually gives me great comfort to know that he has arrived at a form of right-wing radicalism which is ideologically separate from the political roots most London-based figures take their inspiration from. Zia was never a partisan Tory — a fact which should warrant many more people trusting his intentions and aims over the many other familiar faces that like to swirl about.

He has undoubtedly professionalised the party, the primary task he was given, and has been able to build Reform’s capacity to meet the growing dissatisfaction with establishment parties that the electorate has. If he has ruffled a few feathers in the process of doing so, or is ‘hard to work with’, so what? Just last May, Reform was able to stand in nearly all 1,600 council seats up for election (and more than any other party), a feat which many outside the party doubted would be possible. The subsequent results achieved for Reform were surely also, at least in part, Zia’s handiwork. Without him, Reform might not be leading in the opinion polls, but instead struggling at a plateau of its own inadequacy, failing to convince enough people that it is a credible alternative to the status quo. The preference cascade, the ‘inflection point’ that Zia himself likes mentioning, may never have happened. The country is restless enough for Reform’s popularity to be limited only by its own weaknesses, rather than any other factor — it has been dealt a perfect hand otherwise.

Zia is undeniably a radical who is willing to champion policies that he believes are correct regardless of the rosette colour you could pin on them. He represents the personification of a pragmatic nationalism which many of us have been desperately waiting for. Finally we have someone able to effectively and eloquently articulate the problems afflicting the country in a way that is above the GB News talking points and timeline chudnip. This is a man who understands that Reform’s primary appeal to the electorate is not as a Tory reboot but as a new, third-party, authentically populist alternative. For Zia Yusuf, Reform is neither Left nor Right, and Zia is working to keep it that way (against the crashing tide of reactionary seethe). Personally, I like that he has zero reservations in championing China’s successes, regardless of any other misgivings he might have about their government’s policies. Using right-wing arguments to justify populist (and popular) policies that are traditionally thought of as ‘left-wing’ is another politically effective aspect of the Zianist project, and one that was clearly shown by Zia’s appearance on GB News in which he called for full nationalisation of the water industry:

Michelle Dewberry: ‘The government [...] they seem to be woefully inadequate at the things they currently do.’

Zia: ‘And how are [sic] the private sector doing?’

Without being dragged too deeply into the weeds of a dispute long past, I still think it is worth remembering the real causes of the Farage-Lowe Feud, and what it says about both Rupert Lowe and Zia Yusuf. In the first week of March of this year, Rupert Lowe publicly stated three things which, in my view, warranted removal of the whip and his ejection from the party:

1. He teased the idea of himself being leader of Reform UK, rather than Nigel Farage.

2. He was unable to promote Nigel Farage’s leadership as one which would be successful should he enter 10 Downing Street — even claiming he was merely a ‘messianic figure’.

3. And, perhaps most importantly of all, he rejected Reform’s official policy of no electoral pacts with the Conservative Party, and endorsed the supposed necessity of doing so in order to ‘get Labour out’.

It was from this interview with the Daily Mail’s Andrew Pierce, and other preceding events behind closed doors, which triggered Zia throwing Lowe completely under the bus. The bottom line is that Zia is not some Reform mandarin, secretly controlling the party; licking his plump lips at any opportunity to grow his own power. He was appointed by Nigel Farage as a loyalist to work towards Nigel Farage’s aims. In the Farage-Lowe Feud, it was Zia defending the party’s interests against an insubordinate Lowe whose primary aim was self-aggrandisement. It is Zia who has been calling for the destruction of the Conservative Party and for their former ministers to be in jail, compared to Lowe’s politically adulterous predilections. Should Zia have reported him to the police for unrelated ‘threats of physical violence’? I can’t help but feel like Nigel secretly approved of doing so, and let Zia be the one to act and take the blame. Ultimately, Nigel and Zia won, and after much online consternation, Nigel was able to declare his own victory on the eightieth anniversary of D-Day, two months later; meanwhile, Lowe sits around reply-guying Zia like some kind of jilted lover.

The difference between Rupert Lowe and Zia Yusuf couldn’t be clearer. Interestingly, they have both done interviews with The News Agents: Rupert with Emily Maitlis, and Zia with Lewis Goodall. Lowe comes across as smug; as so self-evidently correct that he need not make a real case for his own positions, nor provide any counter-arguments even to Maitlis’ simplest of jabs. She gets away with a great deal because Rupert is far too arrogant; he sees no value in convincing anyone to our side, and would no doubt be happiest at a funfair hall of mirrors, conversing with a series of warped, reflected clones of himself. By contrast, with Zia, you have someone who can engage in the nuances of a multitude of issues with candour, effectively combating Lewis’ — admittedly clever (he is far more effective than Maitlis in this regard) — lines of attack against Zia and Reform’s policy positions. The interview is able to arrive at this point because Zia actually cares about what he is doing. Maitlis, by contrast, was able to call Rupert a racist, giggle, and call it a day. Once again: Rupert lost, Zia won.

Those best placed to gain from issues facing Reform know very well how valuable an asset Zia is for the party. Attacks on Zia are usually at least tacitly pro-Tory. When Zia had his crash-out moment back in June and resigned as Chairman of Reform UK, both establishment politicians and ‘the chud mob’ were delighted to see not only Reform in chaos, but also a key figure exile himself for a period of time (which, in that moment, seemed as if was going to be forever). Likewise, when a racist, anti-Semitic poltergeist possessed Zia Yusuf’s phone, the Tory machine engaged with all pistons, shooting out as many shadow ministers, MPs, and client journalists as it could against Zia to maximise pressure against him. Why, over something as understandable as a tweet being maliciously liked by the spectral intern of the Millbank’s past? Because Zia is a threat, just as Nigel is, and especially to the Conservative Party. That even semi-prominent figures in the Online Right, those who most pride themselves on how oh-so-radical and revolutionary they are, consistently find themselves aligned with Tory politicians (and against Reform) should tell you everything you need to know. Reform can lose some bilge weight figures and be unphased on their voyage, just as Rupert Lowe’s loss showed — and more recently James McMurdock’s — but Reform cannot afford to lose Zia. Farage recognises this, and so should you.

It is we, the Zianists, who recognise Zia’s contributions to Reform, and it is we who actually care about winning power. Winning power is the only thing that matters, and Zia has done incalculable work towards us doing so. Often you will find that those who take themselves totally self-seriously are simultaneously the most unserious in their convictions or ambitions. Conversely, those who are outwardly cooler and sassier are often those who are the most serious about their objectives. So to those who continue to dislike the born-and-bred Scotsman of Clan Yusuf, I say ‘Sorry to hear that. Doing it anyway.’, and stand by Nigel’s relatively-newfound Knight of the Reform Table. May Allah provide Perceval courage on his grail quest for King Arthur.

---

This article was written by Bukes, an enemy of the Pimlico Journal. Have a pitch? Send it to pimlicojournal@substack.com.

If you enjoyed this article, please consider subscribing. If you are already subscribed, why not upgrade to a paid subscription?