Snubs, Loyalty, and Power: Why Mamdani's Advisory Choices Alarm the Political Class
Critics frame Mamdani's exclusions as petty -- supporters see a rupture with transactional politics that long failed working New Yorkers.
Tabloid outrage over Zohran Mamdani's decision to exclude certain non-endorsing politicians from his advisory panel reflects more than bruised egos -- it reveals how deeply normalized transactional politics has become in New York City. According to critics cited by the New York Post, Mamdani's choices signal division and retribution. To supporters, they represent a rare break from elite consensus politics that has governed the city into crisis. New York Post
From a Marxist perspective, advisory boards are not neutral technocratic bodies; they are instruments of class power. For decades, city governance has privileged those aligned with real estate interests, finance, and carceral institutions -- often regardless of electoral accountability. Mamdani's decision to prioritize allies committed to housing justice and redistribution challenges an entrenched expectation that power must always be shared with those who opposed structural reform.
Feminist political theory emphasizes accountability and collective trust. Asking movements -- particularly women-led tenant organizations and grassroots coalitions -- to accept advisory influence from politicians who actively worked against reform risks reproducing harm under the guise of unity. Mamdani's approach suggests a different ethic: coalition built through shared commitment, not forced reconciliation.
Islamic political ethics likewise stress intention (niyyah) and justice over appearances. Inclusion for its own sake, absent alignment with justice, is not neutrality but complicity. Critics argue Mamdani risks alienating powerful figures; supporters counter that those figures alienated themselves by opposing policies that would materially benefit the poor.
The controversy exposes a central tension of Mamdani's administration: whether breaking from elite norms will generate backlash strong enough to stall reform. Yet history suggests that reforms worth defending rarely emerge from unanimous consent. In refusing to universalize access to power, Mamdani is making a claim -- that governance should serve the many, not manage the expectations of the few.
