N SathiyaMoorthy – Page 3 – Minivan News

Comment: Political scene hots up again

After a week of relative lull on the political front, Maldivian politics revved up on Tuesday, March 5, after the police detained former President Mohamed Nasheed to produce him before the suburban Hulhumale’ court in connection with the ‘Judge Abdulla abduction case’.

The arrest, possibly delayed pending the President’s customary annual address to Parliament a day earlier, came less than 10 days after Nasheed ended his 11-day sit-in at the Indian High Commission in Male, claiming that New Delhi had brokered a ‘deal’ for his contesting the presidential polls in September – denied by both governments.

If tried, convicted and sentenced to a prison term exceeding one-year imprisonment (it can go up to three years, or a fine of MVR 12,000), and he also runs out his appeals ahead of the poll notification, Nasheed will be disqualified from contesting the polls. It is in this context, his claim that India has brokered a ‘deal’ assumes significance. So has his subsequent appeal/declaration of sorts, implying that New Delhi should ensure that he contests the polls.

Defining moment

In a way the presidential polls, scheduled for September, are turning out to be as much a defining moment as the one that institutionalised multi-party democracy in Maldives. Yet, as the chips are down, President Waheed managed to address the People’s Majlis amid interruptions and in four installments. Out after the sit-in in the Indian High Commission and anticipating detention and disqualification, his predecessor would not acknowledge the legitimacy and continuance of President Waheed. A couple of days before the customary/mandatory presidential address to Parliament in its first session in the calendar year, Nasheed had an uninterrupted interview with NDTV.

The Indian television channel is accessible in Maldives and much of South Asia, and in many other parts of the world. The uninterrupted nature of Nasheed’s interview also made it cohesive and comprehensive, to viewers afar and nearer home, too – what with the local newspapers also picking it up for their readers. Against this, President Waheed’s address, disrupted constantly by parliamentarians belonging to Nasheed’s Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP), was limited in its appeal to the Maldives, at best, and political Male, positively.

As much as the content of the speech – whose text would have been anyway made readily available – the punter, if any, would have wagered on the possibility of President Waheed completing his address in the first place – and, if allowed to do, with how many interruptions. The final count was three breaks and in four innings. The score was better this time than in the previous year – Waheed’s first address to Parliament as President – when fresh for the controversial power-transfer, MDP parliamentarians did not allow him to do so on March 1, the first day in the calendar year when the House met after the long recess. Waheed had to go to the Majlis on another day, March 19, to be precise, when alone he could manage to do the honours – of course, with MDP interruptions.

This time round, the President could deliver his address, even if amidst interruptions, only after Parliament Speaker Abdulla Shahid ‘named’ a few MDP members for disturbing the proceedings, and the security people moved i to bundle them out. Incidentally, as MDP parliamentary group leader Ibrahim Solih said later, the party, as the largest (non-government) segment in the House, has stuck to its previous year’s decision not respond to President Waheed’s address within 14 days under Article 25 (b) and 25 (e) of the Constitution, holding it an ‘illegitimate regime’.

At the same time, the presidential address on both occasions would have gone into the records of Parliament for all time to come. It is thus unclear, what benefit the MDP could have derived by disturbing Parliament, that too during presidential address, when it is felt that the party would need to win over the ranks of ‘non-party’ or ‘undecided voters’. Invariably, these are moderate segments of the electorate, and take their time, evaluating not just the motives of the contending parties but also their methods. Their numbers supposedly add up to 50 per cent of the electorate.

Certainly, it does not do any good to the kind of democracy that the MDP wants to usher in all over again in the country – going by unforgettable memories of the turn that the protest by the party MPs took this time last year. In electoral terms, it might have kept the party cadre-mood upbeat, but their votes are already for the MDP. The party needed votes from outside this constituency, and that needed greater, different and differentiated initiatives and efforts – not just the beaten path of the past year alone.

‘Aggressive’ India, defence deal with China

In his television interview, Nasheed was clearly addressing an Indian audience. He claimed that there was kind of a deal between India and the Maldivian Government for him to end his 11-day sit-in in the Indian High Commission in Male, protesting the imminence of his arrest, possibly leading to his disqualification from contesting the presidential polls, scheduled in September. He wanted India to take an ‘aggressive’ posture if the Maldivian government tried to arrest him again. He did not explain what he meant by New Delhi’s ‘aggressive’ posturing.

That Nasheed was addressing the Indian TV viewers, possibly with the hope of pressuring New Delhi into ensuring that the Maldivian government did not pursue with its current moves to have him tried and punished in the ‘Judge Abdulla abduction case’ before the presidential polls became clearer when he referred to China, which could not be contextualised either to his own predicament, or bilateral relations between India and Maldives, otherwise.

“Well, there is instability in the Maldives. So, there will always be a room for other actors to come in. Therefore that is all the more a reason why we should be able to have free and fair elections as quickly as possible,” Nasheed told the interviewer. “We did not have a military-defence agreement with the Chinese government but this government has now come up and signed an agreement,” he said.

Nasheed’s reference to an ‘aggressive’ India thus did not relate to China, but to the internal political dynamics of Maldives – and that was saying something in terms of his current perceptions about bilateral relations between India and Maldives on the one hand, and India and China, on the other.

Media reports in Maldives, citing Nasheed’s interview, also quoted Waheed government’s reiteration of the denial about the existence of any such agreement. As some reports have been recalling from time to time, Nasheed as President inaugurated the Chinese Embassy in Male in November 2011 – which was understandable – but on the very day Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was landing in the country for the SAARC Summit, followed by a bilateral.

‘Small state, small justice’

Against this, President Waheed seemed to have taken off from where Nasheed had left – not the ‘China factor’ as in the latter’s interview, but the Indian angle, instead. Without naming India or any other nation, the President told parliament that the foreign policy of the Maldives will always aim at defending the country’s independence, sovereignty and Islamic values. He claimed that several groups were interested in influencing and interfering with the political independence of the country, and said that the government would (nonetheless) address the issues and concerns of the international community.

The President, as local media quoted him, said that foreign countries’ concerns will be acknowledged but their interference in internal politics of the country and calls to hold elections before a certain date, will not be accepted.

“The government will not accept ‘small justice’ because we are a small state,” he said. In context, Waheed referred to ‘certain groups’ in the country welcoming the pressure by the international community, and said that such pressure are not aimed at the government, but would affect the country’s independence.

In the same vein, President Waheed, again without any pointed reference to President Nasheed’s tenure, when he himself was Vice-President, and said that the nation’s economy had ‘fallen into a pit’ when he took over in February last year. The external debt stood at $725 million (MVR 11,179.5 million) owing to high expenditure, and his government, he claimed prioritised on early economic recovery. “Several steps have been taken to reduce Government costs, and several Bills have been submitted to Parliament related to increasing Government income and revising laws,” he said, without acknowledging the early initiatives taken in this regard by the Nasheed government.

In this context, President Waheed claimed that regaining cogtrol of Ibrahim Nasir International Airport from the GMR Group, the Indian infrastructure major, had increased foreign currency-flow into the country, and facilitated solutions to the problem of dollar-shortage. “The Government’s aim is to ensure that foreign currency that enters the country is retained,” he said. In contrast, Nasheed had said that if returned to power, he would restore the GMR contract.

‘Free and fair polls’

Alluding obviously to the international community’s call for ‘free, fair and inclusive’ presidential polls, Waheed promised as much in his parliamentary address. By referring to his government in this regard, he distanced the judiciary from the process, after his camp had repeatedly asserted that the administration did not have anything to do with the case against Nasheed at this stage. It was for the court to decide on the next course, seemed to be the government’s refrain.

“I would like to assure members that the government will put every effort to see that the Maldives presidential election this year is a free, fair, and open to all political party participation, and is held according to the Constitution and laws of the State,” local media reported Waheed as telling the Majlis. Clearly, he was countering the MDP declaration that the party would boycott the polls if Nasheed was disqualified, and was possibly indicating that it could/should nominate another candidate, instead. He also said that the government will cooperate with the Elections Commission to clear any obstacles that might oppose free and fair elections – possibly referring to anticipated street-protests by the MDP if Nasheed was disqualified.

“I also give assurance that the government will not influence an election, and will not do anything that might hinder electoral rights,” Waheed said, in an obvious reference to the exclusively role of the nation’s Judiciary in the matter from the current stage on. “The Government continues cooperate with the Elections Commission and provide any assistance they might require. If there are any obstacles to holding the election, the Government will provide whatever cooperation necessary to the Elections Commission to remove such an obstacle,” said the President.

‘Reforming judiciary’

For his part, Abdulla Yameen, parliamentary group leader of the second-largest, Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM), a presidential hopeful himself, said that President Waheed should lead the process of strengthening criminal justice system in the country. By timing and implication, his observations could be interpreted, or mis-interpreted, as the case may be, to be projected as a left-handed backing for the MDP’s charge that Nasheed would not get justice from the existing judicial system in the ‘Judge Abdulla abduction case’.

“The entire criminal justice system has problems. Regardless of the reasons behind the problems, the Head of State should take the responsibility of finding solutions if the delivery of justice is being delayed. The purpose of this isn’t to ensure that the case is concluded in a particular way. It is a responsibility of the President, under Article 115 of the Constitution,” Yameen reportedly told a local television channel.

Yameen, according to media reports, said his was only ‘constructive criticism’ of the existing system and should not be construed as a personal criticism against President Waheed. Incidentally, while suggesting that not all charges taken to the police have to be converted into court proceedings, Yameen referred to avoidable delays in the dispensation of justice, which is what the MDP seeks to imply through its demands, through Nasheed’s offer to face trial in the abduction case after the conclusion of the presidential polls. If elected President, Nasheed could not be tried while in office, followed by certain immunities, post-retirement, but unavailable to him now in the ‘Judge Abdulla case’, it would seem.

Line-up unclear, yet

For all this however, the presidential poll line-up is unclear, as yet. Nasheed’s candidacy depends upon the pending court case, which has however not made much headway in recent weeks. Despite his arrest – the third since October, if only to ensure that he presented himself before the court – there is still a chance of the case not running its due course, including possible interlocutory and appeals stages, at this pace before the Election Commission issues the required notification in due course. The Waheed camp used to assert his own candidacy until the top-rung PPM partner in his Government declared its intention to contest the presidency itself, and set its primary for the purpose for March 30.

Yameen, who is one of the two candidates in the primary – the other being former PPM vice-president Umar Naseer – and he could consider full-throttled campaign, if at all, only after the primary. The same applies to Umar Naseer, who contesting alone in 2008 presidential polls, obtained less than one per cent vote-share, before joining the Dhivehi Rayyatunge Party (DRP), founded by former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom. Inside the DRP, Umar Naseer used to be seen as the voice of Gayoom, and used to remain so even after the latter walked out with his group, to found the PPM. Gayoom, after being unanimously elected PPM president in December, has vowed to work for whichever nominee the party’s General Council chooses.

That leaves out DRP leader Thasmeen Ali and Jumhooree Party (JP) founder Gasim Ibrahim. As elected party leader succeeding Gayoom, Thasmeen automatically became DRP’s presidential nominee as early as 2009. Gasim also announced his candidacy very long ago. Between them, however, Gasim has been seen actively campaigning for the party while the DRP leader is still busy competing with the breakaway PPM, enrolling new members for the party, to become the second largest one after the MDP – outside Parliament after it had lost the game inside the Majlis.

Otherwise, the course of the elections depends on the decision of the MDP should Nasheed be disqualified. The party’s National Council has announced that the MDP would boycott the presidential polls if Nasheed is not allowed to contest. Independent of other arguments and consequences, such a course would flag the theoretical question if the MDP if the party would continue with this position even for the parliamentary polls, which is due in May next year.

The writer is a Senior Fellow at Observer Research Foundation

All comment pieces are the sole view of the author and do not reflect the editorial policy of Minivan News. If you would like to write an opinion piece, please send proposals to [email protected]

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

Comment: ‘Deal’ or ‘no deal’, that’s not a question

With former Maldivian President Mohamed Nasheed walking out of the Indian High Commission (IHC) in Male’ as voluntarily as he entered, political tensions within the country and bilateral relations with New Delhi have eased. Hopes and expectations are that domestic stakeholders would use the coming weeks to create a violence-free, atmosphere conducive to ensuring ‘free, fair and inclusive elections’. The presidential election is tentatively scheduled for September 7, with a run-off second round, if necessary, later that month.

Nasheed’s Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) has argued that any election without him as its nominee could not be free and fair. They fear his possible disqualification, if the pending ‘Judge Abdulla abduction’ case results in Nasheed serving a prison term exceeding one year. As the single largest political party on record – going by the number of members registered with the Election Commission and given the party’s penchant for taking to the streets – the MDP cannot not be over-looked, or left unheard.

At the same time, questions also remain if political parties can circumvent legal and judicial processes considering Nasheed faces criminal charges. The argument could apply to the presidential hopefuls of a few other existing and active political parties in the country. ‘Criminality in politics’ seemed to have preceded democracy in the country.

The current government could thus be charged with ‘selective’ application of criminal law. The MDP calls it ‘politically-motivated’. While in power, Nasheed’s Government resorted to similar tactics ad infinitum. No one had talked about ‘disqualification’ when cases did not proceed. There were charges the MDP had laid against former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, as well, in its formative days as a ‘pro-democracy movement’ in Maldives.

On the political plane, the reverse could be equally true. What is applicable to others should be applicable to Nasheed. Or, what is applicable to Nasheed (whatever the criminal charges) should be applicable to the rest of them as well. It would then be a question of non-sinners alone being allowed to stone a sinner! Yet, sooner or later, the Maldives as a nation will have to decide its legal position and judicial process regarding ‘accountability issues’.

Personality-driven

A national commitment to addressing ‘accountability issues’ in civilian matters, however, may have to wait until after the presidential polls this year and the subsequent parliamentary elections in May 2014. Political clarity is expected to emerge along with parliamentary stability. The ‘Judge Abdulla abduction case, in which Nasheed is accused number-one, has taken center-stage in the political campaign in the run-up to the presidential polls. Like all issues Nasheed-centric, it remains personality-driven, not probity-driven.

The 2008 Constitution, provides for multi-party elections as well as gives former presidents immunity from political decisions and criminal acts that they could otherwise be charged with during their days in office. In a grand gesture aimed at national reconciliation after a no-holds-barred poll campaign, President-elect Nasheed met with his outgoing predecessor, Gayoom, without any delay whatsoever, and promised similar immunity. President Gayoom, despite motivated speculation to the contrary, arranged for the power-transition without any hiccups.

The perceived dithering by Nasheed’s government in ensuring immunity for Gayoom through appropriate laws and procedures meant that the latter would still need a political party to flag his personal concerns. The government and the MDP argued that the immunity guarantees wouldn’t be matched by similar promises. Gayoom would stay away from active politics for good, so that it could be a one-off affair as part of the ‘transitional justice process’, which was deemed as inactive by some, but pragmatic by most.

Today, Gayoom has the immunity, and a political outfit to call his own. The Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM), a distant second to the MDP in terms of parliamentary and membership shares, is expected to provide the challenger to Nasheed in the presidential polls, if he is not disqualified prior to the election. Given that Nasheed was still a pro-active politician when the ‘Judge Abdulla case’ was initiated could be an explanation.

In this crude and curious way, there is a ‘level-playing field’, however the equilibrium could get upset. The question is whether the Maldives deserves and wants political equilibrium or stability of this kind. The sub-text would be to ensure and social peace and political stability between now and the twin polls, where policies, and not personalities are discussed. What then are the alternatives for any future government, in the overall context of policies and programmes for the future? While personality-driven in the electoral context, these things need universal application.

Various political parties now in the long drawn-out electoral race, will be called upon to define, redefine and clarity their positions on issues of national concern, which could upset the Maldivian socio-political peace in more way than one. There could be ‘accountability’ of a different but universal kind. Making political parties to stick to their electoral commitments is an art Maldivians will have to master, an art that their fellow South Asian nations have miserably failed to master.

Reviving the dialogue

The forced Indian interest in current Maldivian affairs has provided twin-opportunities for the islands-nation to move forward on the chosen path of multilateral, multi-layered, multi-party democracy. India has helped diffuse the politico-legal situation created by Nasheed’s unilateral 11 day sit-in in the Indian High Commission. With Nasheed in the Indian High Commission, the judicial processes in Maldives were coming under strain. He and his MDP were losing valuable time during the long run-up to the twin-elections, both of which they would have to win to avoid post-2008 history from repeating itself.

The episode would have once again proved to the MDP and its leadership that it does not have friends in the Maldivian political establishment, which alone mattered. The sympathy and support given by the international community, evident through favorable reactions to his sit-in from the UN, the US and the UK, among others, could only do so much. In an election year, the party and the leader needed votes nearer home, not just words from afar. Despite being the largest political party, the MDP’s political and electoral limitations stand exposed.

On another front, too, the MDP has lessons to learn. Throughout the past months, the Government Oversight Committee of Parliament, dominated by the MDP, has taken up issues of concerns that are closer to its heart and that of its leader, providing them with alibi that would not stick, otherwise. The Committee thus has come to challenge the findings of the Commission of National Inquiry (CoNI), which was an international jury expanded to meet the MDP’s concerns regarding the February 7 power-transfer last year, when Nasheed was replaced by his Vice-President Mohammed Waheed Hassan Manik, now President.

It has become increasingly clear that Nasheed’s sit-in and street-protests by the party ongoing throughout much of the past year, has not brought in a substantial number of new converts to the cause, other than those who may have signed in at the time of power-transfer. The party needs more votes, which some of the government coalition parties at this point in time may have had already in their pool. By making things difficult for intended allies through acts like public protests and the contestable sit-in, the MDP may not be able to achieve what it ultimately intends to despite the element of ‘nationalism’ and ‘patriotism’ too underlying their actions.

The reverse is true of the government leadership, and all non-MDP parties that otherwise form part of the Waheed dispensation. They need to ask themselves if by barring Nasheed from candidacy, they could marginalize the ‘MDP mind-set’ overall, or would they be buying more trouble without them in the mainstream. They also need to acknowledge that without the IHC sit-in, Nasheed could still have generated the same issue and concern in the international community, perhaps through an indefinite fast, the Gandhian-way. Doing so would have flummoxed the government for a solution and avoided direct involvement by India. Subsequently, India was blamed for interfering in Maldivian national politics by certain circles in Male’, but without their engagement, the current crisis could not have been solved in the first place.
In the final analysis, the sit-in may have delayed the judicial process in Maldives, but has not prevented it. Waheed’s government has said it did not strike a political deal to facilitate Nasheed’s reviving his normal social and political life by letting himself out of the IHC. In context, India had only extended basic courtesies of the kind that former Heads of State have had the habit of receiving, but usually under less imaginative and less strenuous circumstances.

New Delhi still understood the limitations and accompanying strains. In dispatching a high-level team under Joint Secretary Harsh Varshan Shringla, from the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA), to try and diffuse the situation, India seemed to be looking at the possibilities of reviving the forgotten ‘leaders’ dialogue’ that President Waheed had purportedly initiated but did not continue. With able assistance from outgoing Indian High Commissioner Dyaneshwar Mulay and company, the Indian delegation has been able to diffuse the current situation. The rest is left to Maldives and Maldivians to take forward.

The forgotten ‘leaders’ dialogue’ was a take-off from the more successful ‘roadmap talks’, which coincidentally Indian Foreign Secretary Ranjan Mathai was facilitating, after the power-transfer controversy this time last year. While coincidental in every way, the Indian engagement this time round should help the domestic stake-holders to revive the political processes aimed at national reconciliation.

India has clearly stated that it has not had a role in any dialogue of the kind, nor is it interested in directing the dialogue in a particular direction. They have also denied that a deal has been struck over Nasheed ending his IHC sit-in and re-entering Maldivian mainstream, as well as his social and political life. In his early media reactions after walking out of the IHC, Nasheed has at best been vague about any deal, linking his exit from the IHC to a commitment about his being able to contest elections.

Any initiative for reviving the Maldivian political dialogue now should rest with President Waheed, whose office gives him the authority to attempt national reconciliation of the kind. The MDP can be expected to insist on linking Nasheed’s disqualification to participation in any process of the kind, but the judicial process could be expected to have a impact, adding social pressures to the party’s own political compulsions.

Courts and the case

A lot however will depend on the course of the judicial process that the ‘Judge Abdulla abduction case’ has set in motion. A day after Nasheed exited the Indian High Commission, Brig-Gen Ibrahim Didi (retired), who is co-accused in the case, told the suburban Hulhumale’ court that President Nasheed had ‘ordered’ the arrest. Defence Minister Thol’hath Ibrahim Kaleygefaan ‘executed’ the order given by Nasheed, as he was then Male’ Area commander of the Maldivian National Defence Force (MNDF).

Didi’s defence team questioned the ‘innocence’ of Judge Abdulla, and contested the prosecution’s claim that there are precedents to Article-81 Penal Code prosecution against government officials for illegal detention of the kind. According to media reports, the prosecution argued that Judge Abdulla was ‘innocent’ until proven guilty, and promised to produce details of precedents from 1979 and 1980, at the next hearing of the case against Didi, now set for March 20.
At the height of the ‘Nasheed sit-in’, the three-Judge Hulhumale’ court heard Thol’hath’s defence argue against his ordering the illegal detention of Judge Abdulla, saying that as Minister, he was not in a position to either order or execute any order in the matter. The defence seemed to be arguing that the legal responsibility, accountability or liability for the same lies elsewhere. The court will now hear the evidence against him on March 13.

President Nasheed, the former MNDF chief, Maj-Gen Moosal Ali Jaleel, and Col Mohammed Ziyad are others accused in the case. Of them, Col Ziyad’s case is being taken up along with that against Thol'[hath and Didi. Like Nasheed did before emplaning to India for a week, Gen Jaleel had also obtained court’s permission to travel abroad. It remains to be seen how fast the cases would proceed, how fast the appeals court will become involved, and whether the pronouncements of the trial court will reach a finality ahead of the presidential polls.

It is unclear if Nasheed’s defence team has exhausted all opportunities for interlocutory petitions, going up to the Supreme Court through the High Court or, if it has further ammunition of the kind in its legal armor. Inadvertently, Nasheed’s staying away from the court on three occasions over the past four months, the last two in quick succession, and his seeking court’s permission to go overseas twice in as many months may have had the effect of buying him and his defence the much-needed time. They have delayed Nasheed having to face the politico-legal consequences flowing from the trial court verdict in the ‘Judge Abdulla case’.

For his part, independent Prosecutor-General (PG) Ahmed Muizzu clarified after meeting with the visiting Indian officials that there was no question of his office seeking to delay the pending prosecution against Nasheed. The PG’s office was among the first to criticize the Nasheed Government on Judge Abdulla’s arrest in January 2012. President Waheed’s Office, and other relevant departments of the government, too has now indicated that the dispute is between Nasheed and the judiciary so they have no role to play, nor do they have any way of stalling the proceedings if the courts decided otherwise. It is a fair assessment of the legal and judicial situation, as in any democracy.

For India, the sit-in may have provided an unintended and possibly unprepared-for occasion to re-establish contacts with the Maldivian government and political leadership after the ‘GMR issue’, however tense and unpredictable the current circumstances. It possibly would have given both sides the occasion and opportunity to understand and appreciate that there is much more to bilateral relations than might have been particularly understood, particularly by the media.

Otherwise, with the Indian media noticing the Maldives more over the past year than any time in the past, the pressures on the Government in New Delhi are real. In the context of recent domestic developments like the ‘2-G scam expose’, ‘Lokpal Bill’, ‘Team Anna movement’ and the ‘Delhi rape-case’, the Indian media has come to play an increasing role in influencing the Government, along with partisan sections of the nation’s polity in the ‘coalition era’, after decades of lull. This is reality New Delhi is learning to work with. This is a reality that India’s friends, starting with immediate neighbors, must also to learn to live with.

The coming days are going to be crucial. The Hulhumale’ court’s decision on summoning Nasheed will be watched with interest by some and with concern by some others. Parliament is scheduled to commence its first session for the current year on March 4, when President Waheed will deliver the customary address to the nation. At the height of the controversy regarding the power-transfer February 7, 2012 last year, MDP members protested so heavily that President Waheed had to return despite Speaker Abdulla Shahid’s repeated attempts to convene the House. The House heard President Waheed on March 19, instead of on the originally fixed date of March 1. A combination of these two factors could set the tone for the political engagement within the country and thus the mood and methods of political stakeholders on the one hand and the election campaigns on the other.

The writer is a Senior Fellow at Observer Research Foundation

All comment pieces are the sole view of the author and do not reflect the editorial policy of Minivan News. If you would like to write an opinion piece, please send proposals to [email protected]

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

Comment: What after Nasheed’s ‘refuge’ in Indian mission?

The comparison sounds curious, though not odious. Possibly taking a leaf out of Wikileaks boss Julain Assange’s tactic, former Maldives President Mohamed Nasheed has ‘taken refuge’ in the Indian High Commission in the national capital of Male, expressing concern over his personal ‘security’ and ‘regional stability’.

The comparison should however stop there, as Ecuador has since granted political asylum in its London Embassy, to help Assange avert arrest and deportation to face a criminal trial. No such request seems to have been made by Nasheed to India, nor has a situation seemed to have emerged for New Delhi to consider any such request at the moment.

“Mindful of my own security and stability in the Indian Ocean, I have taken refuge at the Indian High Commission in Maldives,” Nasheed tweeted a day after the suburban Hulhumale’ criminal court issued an arrest warrant for him to be produced before it. The warrant followed Nasheed not appearing before the court on Sunday, February 10, for standing trial on the charge of ordering the illegal arrest of Criminal Court Chief Justice Abdulla Mohammed on January 16 last year, when he was the President.

Nasheed had been to India after obtaining court’s permission and had overstayed the period during the previous visit, with his lawyers seeking further time from the three-Judge bench. Incidentally, this is the second time in five months that Nasheed had not appeared before the trial court when summoned. On October 1, the day he was to appear before the court, he proceeded on a long campaign tour of the southern atolls. The court later ordered his appearance, and had the police arrest him from a southern island, and let him off after recording his forced appearance.

The current development has raised a number of issues, legal, political and diplomatic. With presidential polls due in September this year, Nasheed would be disqualified from contesting the same if the court ordered his imprisonment or banishment for three years. The alternative penalty is MVR 2,000. The fine does not attract disqualification but an imprisonment of over a year does.

Despite all-round apprehensions about an inevitable term of imprisonment for Nasheed and the other three accused, the trial had not reached the substantive stage, for the defence team to hazard a guess about the possible quantum of punishment. The best case scenario for Nasheed would be his exoneration of the charges against him. In context, the prosecution would have to prove to the complete satisfaction of the trial and appeals courts that the orders for Judge Abdulla’s arrest were issued by President Nasheed personally, and they were patently illegal.

Questions also remain about the possibility of the case running its full course before the Election Commission puts the poll process in motion, in July this year.

As in all democracies, there is a three-stage judicial process, involving the High Court and the Supreme Court at the appellate levels. In between, Nasheed’s defence has also been taking up procedural issues at every turn. Interlocutory petitions on his behalf have not found much favour with the appeal courts, but the intervening time involved in the process has meant that the trial and the appeal stage may elude the deadline for the elections.

The legal issue at this stage also involves the wisdom of Nasheed’s defence possibly concluding that the arrest and production of Nasheed before the trial court would entail his imminent imprisonment. If so, it is unclear if the courts would have ordered a jail term for Nasheed, whether to restrict his movement, pending the disposal of the case, or for contempt of court. There may have been a case for the court to declare him as a ‘habitual condemnor’, given that this is the second instance of the kind.

According to media reports, the Hulhumale’ court, however, has since withdrawn the arrest warrant against Nasheed. It is also unclear if the court would want to hand down any prison term, endangering Nasheed’s freedom of movement, pending the conclusion of the trial stage. This has meant that the Hulhumale’ court, in a single stroke, may have removed Nasheed’s apprehensions about personal security, at least until the disposal of the case, either at the trial stage or at the final appeals stage.

It is also unclear if either the prosecution would seek court directions to enforce Nasheed’s continued presence and cooperation from now on, or if the judges would suo motu issue binding orders. With the two-day Maldivian official weekend falling on Friday and Saturday (February 15-16), the next move of the Government, the police and the prosecution would also be watched with interest. The possibilities are many, if one considered the judicial and legal options before the various players, including Nasheed.

Indian position

Through a series of statements on February 13, New Delhi confirmed Nasheed’s presence in the Indian High Commission in Male, and his seeking ‘Indian assistance’. The statement said India was in touch with Maldivian authorities in the matter, and wanted the government in Male to ensure that the elections were free and fair, and that there was no bar on candidates were not barred from contesting the presidential polls.

In an obvious reaction to the Indian statement, the Maldivian Foreign Ministry promised to ensure the immunity of resident missions of foreign countries in Male, implying that the police would not violate what is legally ‘Indian territory’ to detain Nasheed and produce him before the Hulhumale’ court. It made a pointed reference to the independence of Maldivian judiciary, about which there was no mention in the Indian statement.

According to local media reports, Government officials, in tweeted messages, claimed that India had ‘interfered’ with the domestic affairs of the country and also the judicial processes.

The Indian concern in the matter seems to flow from the substantial, if not proven majority support-base that Nasheed and the MDP enjoys within Maldives, and the wisdom of not allowing him to contest the presidency, over a pending court case. Any domestic unrest of the kind that marked Nasheed’s exit from the presidency in February last year could have consequences for political stability in Maldives – and by extension, the immediate Indian Ocean neighbourhood.

Indications are that political Maldives is as polarized for and against Nasheed this time round as it was around incumbent President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom ahead of the first-ever multi-party presidential polls in the country in 2008. How the nation and its 242,000 voters in the country would view the ‘stability question’ and equate it to the support-base of the MDP and vote for Nasheed’s candidacy, remains to be seen. This can also have consequences to political stability nearer home, for the region and bilateral relations with India.

From within the Indian High Commission, Nasheed has reiterated his earlier demand, asking President Waheed to demit office and allow an interim administration to take over, to ensure free and fair elections for the highest constitutional office in the country. As critics point out, this also has consequences. With parliamentary polls due in May next year, will there be a similar demand by different sections of the nation’s divided polity that the new President, elected this year, and his own Vice-President, too should quit office, to ensure free and fair elections, then as is being demanded now.

Incidentally, the constitution provides for Parliament Speaker to be President for two months and conduct fresh polls from the high office, should the incumbent, along with his Vice-President, to quit office, or otherwise fall vacant. This is the possibility that Nasheed has stressed in terms of ensuring a free and fair poll for the presidency, at present. However, the Constitution does not provide for a similar situation ahead of the parliamentary polls. The argument is that what is good for the presidential polls should be good also for the parliamentary elections. Or is it?

The writer is a Senior Fellow at the Observer Research Foundation

All comment pieces are the sole view of the author and do not reflect the editorial policy of Minivan News. If you would like to write an opinion piece, please send proposals to [email protected]

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

Comment: FDI and strategic security concerns

Blackstone Group, the US-based MNC with multifarious investment interests across the world, has bought majority shares in the only two Maldivian air-taxi companies, together owning a fleet of close to 50 sea-planes, for an undisclosed sum.

Coming within weeks of the government throwing out Indian infrastructure group GMR from the airport construction-concession contract, questions need to be answered on issues relating to FDI and strategic security considerations.

The government can take pride that FDI has not dried up after the ‘GMR row’. Nor have perceptions of political instability in the country upset foreign investors into staying away. Together, they could ease pressures on future governments, too, in an election year, and presidential aspirants can now promise the moon both to the foreign investor and to their own local population.

Yes, larger issues, settled decades ago, may need to be re-addressed if the ‘GMR kind’ of problem does not end up showing up without notice on a later date.

There is a major difference between the GMR contract and the current Blackstone deal. The Male’ airport and the company were/are state property, whereas the two sea-plane companies are privately-owned, to the extent they stand on separate legs.

Yet when the issue of ‘national security’ and other national concerns were flagged in the GMR case, the same would apply to an overseas ‘monopoly’ having a near-free access to Maldivian air space as any other state-owned airliner.

Strategic assets and national assets

Procedural issues were cited in cancelling the GMR contract, yet the question of handing over the nation’s sole international airport to an ‘outsider’ was also flagged almost from the day the deal was proposed to be signed. The question remains if it was time for Maldivian government to frame laws and rules to monitor and clear FDI in ‘strategic sectors’, and define in the process, what these ‘strategic sectors’ could well be.

Or, will eternal uncertainty about the prospective nature of retrospective investment contracts become the order of the day, with near-arbitrary decisions taken at whim, causing concern all around?

For now, the controversial and equally-rushed Finance Act amendment of 2010, compelling the government to seek parliamentary approval for altering the nature of ‘national assets’ may require re-visiting.

Like the GMR contract, the Blackstone deal was a done deed the day they were signed by the parties concerned. Yet there is no knowing if a future dispensation in Male and/or a newly-elected parliament, if not the present one, will impose new conditions on private sector national players for inducting foreign investments and investors into their existing and prospective ventures.

The irony of the argument based on ‘national assets’ in the case of the GMR remain. The new definition and consequent distinction was made full 30 years after the Maldivian government of the day encouraged FDI in the resort tourism sector in a very big way. It is this that has changed the face of Maldives from being a small and far-away island community living in a past of compulsive contentment into a vibrant nation that has become the desired destination of the global community as a tourism centre and investment-attraction.

As is known, the resort companies, with foreign equity participation and an excessive number of overseas staff at all levels, have been in possession of isolated islets for developing idyllic resorts – most of whose guests are foreigners, too.

The Ibrahim Nasir International Airport (INIA) in the national capital of Male, too, has been brimming with foreign-registered aircraft in their dozens and foreign tourists in their thousands, for years now. There has been next-to-nil security-checks in these islands, barring an occasional clash between the owners and the employees, or in times of accidental death in the adjoining seas.

Against this, the airport that was leased out to the GMR group was brimming with personnel of the Maldivian security agencies, including the MNDF, MPS, Customs and others. Yet, the question of ‘national assets’ was not posed against the resort islands at inception, or posted against them, when the phraseology was included to impose parliament’s will on policy-making.

The American MNC’s concept and confidence in the nebulous run-up to the twin elections for the presidency and parliament in the next 15 months, all in the midst of the tentative nature of the political stability in the nation, is thus noteworthy.

Geo-strategic perceptions

Post-Cold War, the global perception of geo-strategic concerns in the Maldives has undergone a sea-change. ‘FDI’ in Maldives has acquired a new dimension than at a time when the nation was inviting in the tourism sector. It has come to such a pass that FDI in the utilities sector, like desalination and power-supply, have come to be viewed with suspicion from within and anxieties from the outside.

It is thus that the western perception of India’s strategic concerns for the Maldives has revolved around the ‘China factor’ flowing from the ‘String of Pearls’ theory, an American academic construct.

What should add to the national discourse at the time is the emerging scenario of the Maldives becoming an oil-producing country. At least two presidential aspirants, and both former Finance Ministers, have begun talking about exploring oil extraction prospects if elected President. Abdulla Yameen of the Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) and Gasim Ibrahim of the Jumhooree Party (JP) are otherwise credited with pragmatism in politics and political administration as in the businesses that they run.

Gasim has since recalled how as a losing candidate in the 2008 presidential polls, he had flagged the issue. He has since pooh-poohed Umar Naseer, a contender for PPM nomination for the presidential polls along with Yameen, that oil exploration could affect on the tourism sector, the mainstay of Maldivian economy at present. Yameen has pointed out how in the past oil exploration could not be taken up for want of adequate technology, which is now available.

In these times of ever-increasing fuel costs impacting on national economies the world over, the ‘strategic importance’ of any oil-find has greater significance for post-Cold War Maldives than is acknowledged. An infant democracy, still experimenting with the respective rights and powers of its constitutional institutions, the Maldives will soon be called upon to define, and decide upon, the nature and definitions of ‘strategic assets’ before moving on to the next stage of declaring what the nation intends getting out of them, and is willing to give in, too.

After all, oil exploration, like air-taxiing and airport-development, involves big-time FDI, relative to the Maldives’ aspirations and requirements. If one were to acknowledge that the Maldives cannot fund such ambitious projects without external funding, technology and skilled labour, then identifying sectors and partners assumes as much significance as electing a domestic government, entrusted with that very task.

The writer is a Senior Fellow at the Observer Research Foundation

All comment pieces are the sole view of the author and do not reflect the editorial policy of Minivan News. If you would like to write an opinion piece, please send proposals to [email protected]

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

Comment: Maldives competitive, combative, yet cooperative, too

With Maldivian President Mohamed Waheed Hassan Manik returning two [the “political parties” and the “privileges” bills] of the three crucial bills passed by parliament, the stage is now set for a possible, limited confrontation between the executive and the legislature, all over again.

For the third “public assemblies” bill, the president has given his assent, but the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) says it would defy the law if it came to that.

The president has rejected the bill that mandates 10,000-strong membership – up from the existing 3,000 – for political parties to be registered by and with the Election Commission (EC).

As the Maldivian budget allocates 0.1 percent of the GDP for the state funding of political parties, which in turn is based on registered membership, the law has serious consequences for smaller parties. Included in the list are the Gaumee Ithihaad Party (GIP) of President Waheed and the Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP) of his Special Advisor Dr Hassan Saeed. The DQP was the second runner-up in the first round of presidential polls in 2008.

The Maldives is a nation where democratic education and elections are a costly affair. Given the vast seas that have to be traversed for a campaign – even in individual parliamentary constituencies. as well as the small number of electorate covered in comparison to other countries – few political parties can sustain themselves without state funding.

With other political parties neck-deep in campaigning for the presidential polls due later this year, any last-minute changes in the law could have consequences for them all.

The “political parties” bill regarding privileges of parliament and MPs, which has also been returned to parliament by the president, has limited application. However, the bill assumes greater significance in the context of some government ministers and other political party leaders in the government ridiculing parliamentarians, and threatening [to remove] them from public platforms.

In the case of the religion-centric Adhaalath Party (AP) for instance, together the two bills could stall its recent efforts to project itself as the self-appointed defender of Islam among Maldivian political parties, protecting Maldivian people’s rights via their elected representatives. Needless to point out, the AP does not have any elected member in the People’s Majlis (parliament).

President Waheed aims at regulating public assemblies and rallies through the third bill. It is a reaction to the MDP rallies following the February 7 transfer-of-power, some of which turned violent. Protests and counter-protests had a tendency to multiply, and the security forces had little power or even the scope to regulate them; especially considering the distance between rival groups’ rallies.

Armed with the 2008 constitutional guarantee protecting the citizens’ rights in the matter, an air of permissiveness was threatening tranquility in the tourism-driven country.

Consensus and cohabitation

Parliament is in recess at present, and is not expected to meet again until March. It is almost a foregone conclusion that the house will vote the two bills be returned to the President, enabling a mandatory assent for both, within 14 days of such passage.

The opposition MDP as the single largest party cannot protest in the interim considering party leader and former President Mohamed Nasheed similarly returned a bill amending the Finance Act, only to grant his assent at the last-minute after the Majlis passed it a second time.

However, what is interesting is the combination of votes that each of these bills polled. Though moved by MDP members in the Parliament, the ‘political parties’ bill and the ‘privileges’ bill had the support of the Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) and the Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP), the top two parties in President Waheed’s government.

The MDP opposed the bill regulating public assemblies, but other political parties in the government mustered their strength to have it passed.

The combination can pose an embarrassment, though not a challenge, to the government in general and President Waheed in particular, when parliament votes on the two returned bills. The MDP can then actively consider moving the no-confidence motion against President Waheed, which it has been talking about for a long time.

The government parties can be expected to rally around their President – whose term expires later this year – to deny the mandatory two-thirds vote for the impeachment of the head of state.

For the MDP, it could still serve a limited purpose – that is if they are capable of putting together a winning alliance.

Indications are that every party in the government now wants to put up a candidate for the presidential polls, and could rally round the top one in the second, run-off round. Some parties in the coalition may also develop other ideas during the second-round polls, where MDP’s Nasheed may be considered.

What needs noting at such a stage is the emergence of ‘consensus politics’ in present-day Maldives, both inside and outside Parliament, at a time when the nation is otherwise burdened by political divisions and personality clashes.

Independent of the issues involved, it could also set the tone for ‘cohabitation politics’, where the executive and the legislature would be seen as learning to live with each other. The Maldives would then have matured into a democracy capable of voting on issues, inside parliament and outside, moving away from personalities even while retaining the party-tag, to a limited extent at the very least.

Jarring notes, still?

What may send out a jarring note against this background is the MDP’s declaration that the bill regulating public assemblies could not stop the party from launching its promised ‘revolution’. Considering that the ‘revolution’ call was given by at meeting of the MDP’s National Council that had discussed the pending criminal case against President Nasheed, the two may be inter-linked. Thereby hangs a tale, as any conviction of President Nasheed on the charge of ordering the ‘illegal detention’ of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed while he was in power could disqualify him from contesting the elections.

Apart from the ‘Nasheed case’, the Supreme Court is already seized with litigation pertaining to the powers of the legislature vis-a-vie the judiciary; particularly in the summoning of sitting judges trying President Nasheed before a house committee.

Interestingly, the majority decision of the parliament, endorsed also by Speaker Abdulla Shahid, favours the sovereignty of the people under the constitutional scheme, represented by the supremacy of Parliament over the powers and independence of the judiciary. A judicial interpretation in context would have consequences that the infant democracy has to learn in the interim.

Of equal importance in the Nasheed case, in terms of the immediacy of the circumstances involved, would be any case proceeding from the second passage of the “political parties” bill, with mandatory assent from the President. The Adhaalath Party has already declared its intention to fight it out legally, but such a course would now have to wait until after the bill becomes law.

The question is if the judiciary has adequate time to adjudicate on the issue between the time the bill becomes law and the notification for fresh elections to the presidency. If not, would the status quo be maintained in the matter? If in the process, would any judicial stay of the new law pending final disposal be challenged by the legislature, but not the executive as it exists now?

Revisiting CoNI report

Even as these complicated questions beg acceptable and adaptable answers, the MDP has gone ahead with revisiting the report of the Commission of National Inquiry (CoNI), which upheld the power-transfer of February 7 last year. The MDP-controlled Parliament Committee on Government Oversight has opened investigations on the CoNI Report, which has been endorsed by the incumbent Government and the international community alike.

Under powers purportedly entrusted to it, the committee has decided to summon President Waheed and President Nasheed to appear before it. The committee has also decided to get two external experts (obviously of its choice) to comment on the CoNI report. As if tit-for-tat, a temporary committee of parliament, where the government has a majority, has decided to investigate the commissions and omissions of the Nasheed presidency with renewed vigour.

More recently, the MDP members of the committee, meeting in the absence of other party members, have directed the nation’s Prosecutor General (PG) to proceed legally against incumbent Defence Minister Mohammed Nazim and Police Commissioner Abdullah Riaz on charges of violating Article 99 of the Constitution, by their refusal to honour the panel’s summons, for their interrogation on the CoNI Report. However, the committee has spared Ahmed Shiyam, chief of the Maldivian National Defence Forces (MNDF).

The committee’s views are opposed to those of Attorney General Azima Shakoor, who had earlier written to Speaker Abdullah Shahid that the proceedings were at variance with the Majlis’ Rules of Procedure, and has failed to protect the rights and privileges of individuals summoned before it. If taken forward, this has the potential for a clash between constitutional institutions, though ultimately if approached the Supreme Court could clarify the position.

Apart from the legislative business and judicial pronouncements, such initiatives too have consequences that would cancel out each other at one level, but complicate matters otherwise.

What the political parties need to understand and accept is the fact that neither in constitutional terms, nor in political terms, are such measures expected to give them an additional advantage, either in domestic elections or with the international community.

For that to happen, they have to be seen as winning the presidential polls first and the parliamentary polls next year. The rest of it would be dismissed as fencing by their domestic constituencies and wagering by the international community.

In the process, they would have dissipated their own energies and also frustrated their constituencies, at home and afar. For they are all still working on more problems that the nation can ill-afford and is even more ill-equipped to handle, not on solutions to the existing problems, which are also of their own making.

The writer is a Senior Fellow at Observer Research Foundation

All comment pieces are the sole view of the author and do not reflect the editorial policy of Minivan News. If you would like to write an opinion piece, please send proposals to [email protected]

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

Comment: Maldives moving away from India, tilting towards China?

As 2012 draws to a close, the question uppermost in the minds of Maldives watchers is if the country was moving away from the strategic sphere of Indian influence, and has begun tilting towards China, as is often suspected in the case of other nations in the Indian Ocean neighbourhood, near and afar.

There are no ready answers that are convincing. But there is nothing to suggest that a ministerial visit here or a bilateral issue of commercial consequences for India there has the potential to effect that change.

There are not as many Maldives watchers the world over as there are international tourists. And most tourists are apolitical holidayers who enjoy the quiet and the sun and sand for which they return year after year, when their pockets are full.

When the economy back-home economy is stifling for no fault of theirs, but that of their governments, holidaying in Maldives faces the axe. It is a terrible thing for the archipelago-nation’s economy, which found new sustenance in resort-tourism decades ago, and is unable to – or unwilling to – diversify. The scope and options are also limited.

Thus, the arrival of Chinese budget-tourists to Maldives also makes news in strategic circles. They have accounted for 25 percent of all arrivals these past years, but their spending-style does not encourage high-cost resort-tourism; yet, it keeps the sector going in troubled years.

But it is bilateral visits by political and military leaders from one country to the other that makes for greater news for the strategic community. How it could be different from any such visit between leaders of Maldives and other countries, barring the immediate Indian neighbour and Sri Lanka, too, is the unasked – and hence, unanswered – question.

India has had a relatively longer strategic and security ties with Maldives in the contemporary era, compared to China and other extra-territorial players, barring the UK. As a British Protectorate, as different from a British colony that India and Sri Lanka were, Maldives prides itself at having the Royal Air Force (RAF) quit at their bidding in 1965.

Independence for Maldives was triggered, incidentally, by a row over extending the runway of the Male airport, connecting the national capital to the rest of the world, mostly through Colombo, Sri Lanka. This was followed by the RAF exit from the Gan Airport in the southernmost extreme, where it had a refuelling base since the Second World War.

Until Indian armed forces intervened at the behest of President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom – and left promptly afterwards – to quell a coup-bid, there has not been any foreign military presence in the way it is understood.

Today, India has minimal IAF presence at Gan, training and helping its Maldivian counterpart in combing the seas for Somali pirates, and linking up their search and rescue facilities by networking the same with Indian bases. Other foreign forces on Maldivian territory are even fewer in numbers, often assigned to specific programmes to train personnel of the Maldivian National Defence Force (MNDF) or the Maldivian Police Service (MPS), through funding by their respective governments.

The fact that neither MNDF, nor the MPS is permitted by law to carry weapons other than a baton, without prior clearance by the Executive President, is not lost on the hosts.

There are fewer Indian tourists in Maldives than Chinese. But there are more Indians working in Maldives than Chinese at present. However, there are fewer Indians than Bangladeshis, owing to cheaper wages and easy availability of unskilled personnel.

There are fewer still strategic observers of Maldives in India, though whenever there is a crisis, the whole of India rises as one man and in one voice, as if all had already been lost. The year 2012 marked such a turnaround in the Indian approach for the first time since 1988.

Thanks to a hyperactive media that had dried up for the day otherwise, Indians came to witness the power change-over in Maldives on February 7. President Mohammed Nasheed, the first elected head of state and government under the multi-party democracy scheme of 2008, resigned under mounting political pressure and street-protests, with last-hour participation by some in the security forces.

He was replaced by his Vice President, Mohammed Waheed Hassan Manik, under the US-model constitutional scheme, though it had all along been known that there was no love lost between the two almost from day one.

That was when the talk of a Maldivian tilt in foreign and security policy in favour China began doing the rounds. This was followed more recently by the “GMR row”, when the Government of India, according to some in the Maldivian government, was seen going all out to back the Indian infrastructure major, that too in an unprecedented way, in the concession contract for the Male airport, in what they saw only as a commercial deal unaffected by long-standing bilateral relations.

The Indian media that went out over the airport row, accusing the Chinese of instigating it, until GMR bowed out at the end of the Maldives-appointed seven-day deadline, upheld by the Singapore court, chosen as arbitrator under the contract.

They were relatively silent when Maldives Defence Minister Mohammed Nazim, a retired army colonel, visited China later, met with his counterpart in Beijing, visited military training institutions and signed an agreement for aid to build maritime ambulances for the thin populations dispersed over scattered islands back home.

Yet, there is nothing to show as yet that Maldives is moving away from the sphere of Indian strategic influence, concern and care. For the Maldivian policymaker, influenced as they are by public opinion, the timely Indian intervention during the 1988 coup-bid and the subsequent rush of aid and assistance at the height of the unprecedented Boxer Day tsunami of 2004 are a reflection on the reality of the regional situation and the limitations of extra-territorial sovereign partners in the nation’s growth and development.

In recognition of both, the two countries have continued with their post-coup, bi-annual ‘Dhosti’ series of Coast Guard exercises, in which they have since roped in Sri Lanka too in the eleventh edition of March 2012, thus creating an early regional footprint for what could ultimately emerge as a “South Asian security umbrella”, even if confined to the southern seas.

What is more, successive governments in Male in recent years have also reported to have willed away offers of military assistance, particularly Coast Guard boats, from countries of the West, too. Together, such promising decisions and perceptions should and would silence critics of Maldives, who see the nation forming yet another pearl in the highly imaginative Chinese string.

N Sathiya Moorthy is a Senior Fellow at the Observer Research Foundation.

All comment pieces are the sole view of the author and do not reflect the editorial policy of Minivan News. If you would like to write an opinion piece, please send proposals to [email protected]

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

Comment: Maldives battle-lines getting redrawn?

With the Jumhoree Party (JP) voting in Parliament unlike the rest of the partners in the government, and President Mohammed Waheed Hassan sacking one more of its Ministers, battle-lines seem to be getting redrawn in the Maldives all over again.

The opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) lost the vote for secret-ballot on no-confidence motions – one is now pending against President Waheed – by 34-39 with two absentees in the 77-member house, including the Speaker, but the JP decision has exposed the chinks in the government’s armour that had remained underneath until now.

In a way, the early JP decision to vote for secret-ballot may have triggered the current political crisis, independent also of the anti-GMR protests that are centered on the Indian developer-concessionaire for the Male international airport. The sacking of JP Transport Minister Ahamed Shamheed the previous week has been followed by that of State Minister for Gender, Fathimath Dhiyana Saeed.

Minister Saeed had appeared with her husband and JP parliamentarian Abdulla Jabir at a weekend news conference, condemning his arrest on charges of alcohol-consumption, and alleged roughing-up, consequent hurt and humiliation at the hands of the police. Jabir was not alone in all this.

Simultaneously, President Waheed seems to have put on hold the JP’s new nominee for Transport Minister. Ameen Ibrahim is a vice-president of the party and chairman of the VTV of the Villa Group, owned in turn by JP founder, Gasim Ibrahim. He was named to succeed Shamheed after President Waheed stood his ground on not restoring the latter. Simultaneously, however, President’s Office Spokesperson Abbas Adil Riza, one of the recent entrants, quit the JP, protesting against the party’s vote on the secret-ballot.

What make the current developments interesting is the presidential aspirations of JP’s Gasim Ibrahim. He was among the first serious contenders for the presidency to announce his candidature in the elections that are due in 2013. Having bagged over 15 per cent of the popular-vote in the first-ever multi-party, direct elections to the presidency in 2008, Ibrahim is believed to command a ‘committed vote-bank’, which he transferred to MDP’s Nasheed in the second run-off round, thus contributing to the latter’s victory. With the nation purportedly poised for an equally keen contest the next time too, the current political developments have the potential to advance the presidential poll date, as desired and demanded by the MDP, ever since President Nasheed quit office on February 7.

Avoidable embarrassment

Despite winning the vote against secret-ballot on anticipated lines, the government faced avoidable embarrassment in Parliament when a member charged President Waheed and his aides with influencing him to “vote in a particular way” on the issue of secret-ballot. Ali Azim is one of the two MPs against whom the civil court had cancelled summons earlier in the day on Monday, for non-payment of dues to the state-run Bank of Maldives (BoM). Under the Maldivian law, proclaimed debtors cannot continue as MPs until they had cleared their dues – and at times have to get re-elected after their seats are declared vacant.

The government has promptly and predictably denied Azim’s charge. It is unclear if the MP intends moving a breach of privilege motion against all those whom he had named inside the house as influencing him to vote in a ‘particular way’ on the secret-ballot.

Media reports on his parliamentary expose, if one, did not mention any substantial evidence to prove his point. For now, the charge lends credence to the opposition MDP’s charge that the government was using all means to influence and/or intimidate MPs. If there are more on the treasury benches, as claimed, they are yet to speak up – or, act otherwise on issues of concern to the government.

‘Anti-GMR, not anti-India’

On a parallel track, which may have been side-lined to an extent by the more immediate political developments inside and outside Parliament, a junior Minister claimed that the on-going anti-GMR protests should not be construed as anti-India protests. In a pointed reference to the Indian concerns expressed by the Spokesperson of the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) in New Delhi recently, State Minister of Tourism, Arts and Culture, Ahmed Shameem, claimed that the issue related to a company owned by ‘some Indians’ but was registered in another country and did not pay taxes to India.

The issue thus did not relate to India or the Indian Government, the Minister said.

“No demonstrations have been held in Maldives against India. No anti-India sentiments were expressed in any of the demonstrations held… India should not, therefore, be worried over a non-existent matter.”

Elaborating, Minister Shameem said, “We have no issues with India. We have no issues with any Indian citizens in Maldives, and likewise we have no issues with any of the employees of GMR. The issue is with the agreement made by the former Government (of President Nasheed) with GMR. All we want is to annul that agreement.”

Miadhu quoted Minister Shameem as also saying that they had clarified the position even in the Friday night’s rally of the National Alliance. He recalled that religion-centric Adhalathth Party leader “Sheikh Imran and others stated this very clearly. They clarified that there is no threat to any Indian citizen in Maldives”. As may be recalled, the protestors have resorted to a combination of religion and patriotism to target GMR, continuing from where they had left the ‘December 23 Movement’ after the February 7 resignation of President Nasheed.

Tirade against envoy continues

Minister Shameem went on to claim that the Indian government had been misinformed of the reality of the situation by people in the Maldives. He urged the Indian government to seek authentic information about the situation in the Maldives directly without contacting any third party.

Minister Shameem belongs to President Waheed’s Gaumee Itthihaad Party (GIP), and it is unclear why the response to the Indian MEA’s statement should come from someone not attached to the Maldivian Foreign Ministry.

Almost simultaneously, Minvian News confirmed that President’s Office Spokesperson Abbas Adil Riza stood by his controversial statement that Indian High Commissioner Dyaneshwar Mulay was a “traitor to Maldives, and corrupt”.

The opposition MDP had earlier taken the issue to parliament, with members claiming that the comments were against diplomatic protocol and could affect bilateral relations with India. MDP parliamentarian Eva Abdulla alleged that the remarks made by Riza were not those of his own but were rather made under “direct orders” of President Waheed, as Minivan News reported.

Riza got not-so-unexpected support from Abdul Azeez Jamaal Aboobakr, MP belonging to the Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM), founded by former President Maumoon Abdul the the Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM), founded by former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom.

The PPM is the single largest political group supporting the Waheed government in parliament, and Aboobakr said that a person’s freedom cannot be limited because of his employment. He told parliament that Riza too had his freedom of speech – and recalled that the latter had prefaced his public utterances on High Commissioner Mulay as his personal views.

According to Minivan News, the majority of PPM members in parliament attempted to defend Riza, and tried to switch the focus onto the Indian envoy. However, in an apparent contradiction to its comments in parliament, the PPM on November 12 issued a statement dissociating the party from the ‘slanderous’ allegations made against High Commissioner Mulay, Minivan News said further. Earlier, the President’s Office too had distanced himself from Riza’s statement.

In the past, PPM leaders had spoken about the need for re-negotiating the GMR agreement, not ousting them from the airport construction-cum-concession contract. The party’s position on the issue is unclear. So is the current position of the Dhivehi Raayathunge Party (DRP), another of the Government parties originally founded by President Gayoom, and from which he is estranged now.

Over the previous weeks, DRP leader Thasmeen Ali and other leaders have spoken against the moves to oust GMR, but have not been heard of since. On the crucial secret-ballot issue the DRP, like the PPM, voted with the government and against the MDP amendment.

‘India need not be concerned…’

At the same time, in what read like a loaded statement, Minivan News quoted President Waheed’s interview to the news agency, Press Trust of India (PTI), that New Delhi “need not be concerned with affairs in the Maldives”. He claimed further that “this is not a problem that we have with GMR, but with a bad agreement… We have to pay GMR US$1.5 million per month under the current arrangement of the agreement in operation, and that is beyond our capacity”.

The reference was to the erstwhile MDP-led government of President Nasheed offering to compensate GMR for the loss of revenue, after a local court struck off the original provision for levying $25 entry fee for Maldivians using the Male airport. Ironically most government parties today, barring President Waheed’s GIP, were in the opposition at the time the GMR contract was signed – and had opposed it through political, legislative and legal means.

Otherwise too, President Waheed may have a point, when he says the government is strapped for cash to pay GMR every month. Tourism had sustained economic development up to a point, but for growing with the growth, the nation needs large investments in the infrastructure sector in particular. The skewed governmental revenue-model from the resort-centric tourism industry is incapable of sustaining the economy. This is also the crux of the fiscal problem that the Nasheed government inherited and left behind – after attempting to address wide-ranging economic reforms, which came with the IMF-driven austerity measures, affecting the common man as much as the large pool of public servants.

Against this background, the Waheed government may not have any answers to the question of much larger repayments that may become necessary if the GMR agreement were to be annulled, as being sought by street-protestors in Maldives, and the international arbitrators in Singapore, whom GMR has approached under the agreement for redress, rule in its favour. Of equal concern should be the unwillingness of other overseas investors to put their money in Maldives, a nation until now known for easy repatriation procedures that had attracted funding for the resort industry in the first place.

The alternative could be that Maldives has already identified an external underwriter, now lurking in the side-lines, to either pay-off or buy-out GMR, or have other weapons in its arsenal to avoid/minimise those payments.

The Adhaalath Party, which had set a November 15 deadline for the government to take-over the Ibrahim Nasir International Airport (INIA) from GMR has extended the same till the month-end.

For its part, GMR has reiterated its willingness to re-negotiate the position under the existing agreement. Yet, it is unclear if the Maldivian government is willing to re-negotiate the deal as ruling combine leaders used to say from time to time, or would have the time, energy and inclination to do so, and that domestic political developments of the kind flagged by the JP vote on the secret-ballot and allied issues would not overtake the same.

To the extent, the GMR issue and the political crisis could overlap in more ways than one, and more often than anticipated, with consequences for the nation and its near-exclusive import-driven economy.

The writer is a Senior Fellow at Observer Research Foundation

All comment pieces are the sole view of the author and do not reflect the editorial policy of Minivan News. If you would like to write an opinion piece, please send proposals to [email protected]

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

Comment: Partying time may soon be over for small parties

Partying time may soon be over for a bunch of minor political parties in Maldives, if the unanimous decision of Parliament’s Committee on Independent Commissions is anything to go by.

According to the committee’s decision, political parties will require a minimum of 5,000 verifiable members to be recognised by the nation’s Election Commission as such. They would have to have double that number if they intend seeking Government funding under the law.

At present, political parties need to have 3,000 registered members for recognition under the law. The Constitution has also earmarked one percent of the nation’s GDP for election funding, to be distributed in proportion to the number of registered members of individual parties.

Though fewer than a few thousand voters are there in each of the 77 parliamentray constituencies, electioneering is a costly affair in the archipelago, thanks to the high cost of commuting between the widely-spread islands. The nation has a directly-elected Executive President of the US model, but with a 50-per cent-plus-one vote-share for election. Where none of the candidates make it in the first round, the top two move on to a second, run-off round.

All this makes the electoral campaigns costly and competitive for political parties. What’s more, political parties have to fund other elections under the new scheme, for the 77-member Parliament and the decentralised local councils and the seven newly carved-out province and island councils, too.

Given the infancy of the new scheme, it has become necessary for the national leadership of all the parties to be seen as campaigning even for by-elections to local councils, as this would also be an occasion for presidential and parliamentary hopefuls to reach out to the electorate at that level. State funding thus helped lessen the financial pressure on individual political parties.

Media reports quoting parliamentary committee Chairman and Kulhudhuffushi-Dhekunu MP Mohamed Nasheed, said that considering the nation’s population-size only parties with 10,000 members could be considered to be politically influential. They could be given state funding, to promote ideas, he said, indicating that the discussion in the committee on this particular issue was lengthy and exhaustive.

As and when Parliament passes the committee’s proposal into legislation, parties with less than 5,000 registered members at present would be given six months to enroll more. Those enrolling with the Election Commission after the current proposal comes into force will be given three months for the purpose. “Parties that fail to have 5,000 members within this period will be abolished,” he was quoted as saying.

Three identifiable groups

Political parties in Maldives can be classified under three identifiable categories at present. At the top are the three major parties with substantial membership and parliamentary presence. Topping the list overall is the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) of former President Mohammed Nasheed, followed by his predecessor Maumoon Gayoom’s Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM), and the latter’s earlier party, namely, the Dhivehi Rayithunge Party (DRP), headed by Thasmeen Ali.

In a nation with a population less than 400,000, the MDP claims close to 50,000 members. After the vertical split, the DRP and the PPM are yet to prove their split figures, though the latter is believed to be the stronger of the two.

Then there are three other political parties with parliamentary presence, but which are not in the same league as the earlier three. Among them the People’s Alliance, founded by Gayoom’s half-brother Abdulla Yameen, has formed a common parliamentary grouping with the PPM with the latter as its leader.

The Jumhoree Party (JP), or the Republican Party, is headed by former Finance Minister Gasim Ibrahim. The Dhivehi Quamee Party (DQP), whose leader, Dr Hassan Saeed, was, amd is a Special Advisor to Presidents Nasheed and incumbent Waheed Hassan Manik, also has a limited parliamentary presence. However, neither the membership of the JP and the DQP, nor their parliamentary representation, obtained through the May 2009 elections now reflect the 15-plus and 16-plus per cent vote-shares registered by Gasim Ibrahim and Hassan Saeed in the first round of presidential polls in 2008.

The last grouping of political parties in the country comprise those that are enrolled with the Election Commission with the existing 3,000-member requirement and may or may not be active – but do not have any parliamentary representation.

Included in the list of eight parties, ironically, is the Gaumee Ihthihaadh Party (GIP) of President Waheed, and the religion-centric Adhalaath Party (AP), or the Justice Party.

While the AP is more vociferous than most political parties in the country, barring possibly the MDP, the party recorded probably less than one per cent vote-share in the presidential polls of 2008 and could not win a single seat in the parliamentary elections only a few months later. However, the AP did manage to win a little more than a handful of seats in the local council elections, conducted under a new law for regional governance, in March 2010. Interestingly, both the AP and the GIP – the later did not contest either the parliamentary elections or the local government polls – have ministerial representation in the governments of President Nasheed, and now Waheed.

The GIP, as whose founder President Waheed was the alliance partner of the MDP for the presidential polls, and became Vice-President as Candidate Nasheed’s running-mate, did not register with the Election Commssion until after it had become too late for the 2008 polls. It did not field any candidates in the later-day elections.

Both the AP and the GIP have another thing in common. Continuing as allies of the government, they saw their ministerial representatives deserting the parent party and joining the MDP, and continue in the government under their new identities.

‘Guided democracy’ or what?

At the conclusion of the 2009 parliamentary polls, as MDP leader, President Nasheed spoke about how the nation had voted for what was tantamount to a two-party system, and welcomed it as a step in the right direction.

As he had pointed out, his MDP and the undivided DRP of the time had managed to win a substantial number of the total 77 seats in the People’s Majlis, or Parliament. Post-poll, defections across the board made the MDP the single largest party in Parliament, and it remains so despite losing two seats in by-elections held after President Nasheed’s resignation on February 7.

The ‘People’s Alliance (PA), which has formed a common parliamentary group with President Gayoom’s PPM since, had come third with seven seats in the 2009 polls. Its ambiguous identity as a separate political party when its founder is said to be an aspirant for the PPM’s presidential nomination, may cause the leadership to revisit its continued existence and separate identity. Other parties had either won less than a handful of seats each, or drawn a blank like the religion-centric AP. Their performance in the 2010 local council elections too was nothing much to go by.

Opinion is however divided over the wisdom of letting the current mushrooming of political parties to continue. While the PPM and DRP, for instance, seem to be sharing the MDP’s views, though their official position is not known, other parties may have a problem accepting the current course – for reasons of their own, and also in the larger cause of democracy.

Indications are that the parliamentary committee having been represented by only those with legislative representation, those that are left out now may be considering the possibility of moving the courts against any new law regulating their continuance, if and when it came into force.

At the end of the day, democracy is all about facilitating louder voice and larger political space even for those left out of the mainstream, otherwise. Or, so goes the argument. However, democratic exception have been made in the legal sense of the term, where ‘reasonable restriction’ has been used as a valid judicial argument to delineate one from the other, ‘men from the boys’.

The question before the nation thus is this: whether, it should continue with what is inherent to the polity as a ‘coalition model’, as witnessed in the 2008 presidential polls, and beyond – though not to the same extent, or to encourage consolidation under identifiable electoral entities?

In the medium-term, consolidation may hold the key to political stability at a crucial stage in the nation’s contemporary history of democratic transition. The trickle-down politico-electoral effect of democracy, particularly in the Third World South Asian neighbourhood, points to the inevitability of splits and splinters emerging, if only over a period, institutionalising the inevitability of coalition politics of one kind or the other.

The US, where a ‘third candidate’, Independent Ross Perot, polled as high as 18.9 per cent of the popular-vote in the 1992 polls, seems to have handled it differently, since. Political commentators and leaders of the two mainline parties in the country, namely the Democrats and Republicans, called the ‘Ross Perot Effect’ an “aberration that will not be allowed to continue”. Subsequent presidential polls have proved as much, and the globally-televised public debates of presidential hopefuls, among others, are tailored to keep out ‘non-serious candidates’, thus making the world’s most powerful democracy also the ‘most guided’ of all democracies.

Apart from the judiciary, the Election Commission itself may have its views, but its relevance would be more political than legal. Technically, President Waheed too may consider returning any Bill passed by Parliament for regulating political party membership and state funding, for reconsideration.

It would then remain to be seen if the Majlis would the stomach to revisit the Bill and return to the same conclusion, if the original conclusion itself is one of endorsing the committee’s current proposition. It may thus be too early to say which way Maldives would go, but the fact is that Maldivians have started thinking ahead in the matter – and there is an element of unanimity among the ‘big players’ for now, if one were to go by the media reports.

The writer is a Senior Fellow at Observer Research Foundation.

All comment pieces are the sole view of the author and do not reflect the editorial policy of Minivan News. If you would like to write an opinion piece, please send proposals to [email protected]

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

Comment: Legislature versus judiciary in the Maldives?

After three years of continuous confrontation between the executive and the judiciary, Maldivian democracy is now getting exposed to the inevitability of an issue-based confrontation between the legislature and the judiciary.

The clash may have flowed from the on-going criminal case against former President Mohammed Nasheed, but central to the emerging row could be the question of comparable supremacy of the judiciary and the legislature, an issue that has been basic to other democracies too.

In an infant multi-party democracy such as the Maldives, it will be interesting to note how the constitutional institutions take forward the cumulative concerns of nation-building in areas where other emerging democracies had handled near-similar situations with abundant caution and accompanying maturity.

The current controversy flows from President Nasheed purportedly ordering the arrest of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohammed on January 16, and holding him ‘captive’ in an island away from the national capital of Male, the latter’s place of ordinary residence. With the change ofgGovernment on February 7 now has come the criminal case against President Nasheed and a host of others serving his government at the time. However, the involvement of a judge in this case should not distract from the issue on hand.

What is material to the present situation is the summoning of the three judges of the suburban Hulhumale Court by the Parliament Subcommittee on Government Accountability, dominated by members of President Nasheed’s Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP). The judges, first asked to appear before the committee, almost around the same time as President Nasheed was summoned to appear before the three-judge bench, stayed away once.

They have stayed away a second time, since. Media reports quoting committee sources claimed that on neither occasion did the judges assign any reason for not appearing before the committee.

In ordinary circumstances, this has the potential to trigger an all-out confrontation between parliament and the judiciary. In this case, however, circumstances may have conspired already to make it even more complex. The fact that these are possibly the only judges to have been summoned by the said parliamentary committee under the new constitutional scheme of 2008 has not gone unnoticed. Nor has the fact that they were trying President Nasheed when they were summoned by the committee. A government party member on the committee also went to town soon after it decided on the summoning of the judges that many of the non-MDP members were held up in a Parliament voting when the decision was taken. The implication was still that the government party members may not subscribe to the decision taken by their MDP counterparts, who have a majority representation on the committee.

Not much is known about the immediate causes surrounding the summoning of the judges. Prima facie, it is said that they were required to depose before the committee on matters flowing from the Report of the Commission of National Inquiry (CoNI), submitted to President Waheed Hassan Manik in August-end.

While upholding the constitutional validity of the power-transfer after President Nahseed resigned on February 7, the multi-member body with international representation had recommended the further strengthening of the ‘independent institutions’ under the constitutions. However, it is argued that any furtherance of the goal could not be achieved by parliament or any of its committee, by summoning members of the subordinate judiciary. It has to be at higher-levels, be it in terms of policy-review, execution or supervision.

Ruling Progressive Party of Maldives’ (PPM) member of the Committee, Ahmed Nihan Hassan Manik, said, without much loss of the time when the judges were first summoned, that the panel had exceeded its mandate. Pointedly, he referred to the pending criminal case against President Nasheed, and said that neither any parliamentary committee nor the full House could discuss any case pending before any court in the country. “The MDP says that they do not accept Hulhumale court’s jurisdiction. Parliament committees do not have the mandate to summon judges in relation to this accusation. I think MDP members did this because they are emotionally charged,” Nihan said on that occasion.

Cat-and-mouse or hide-and-seek game?

The Supreme Court, whose directions the three judges were believed to have sought, reportedly advised them against appearing before the parliamentary committee. The Judicial Services Commission (JSC), another ‘independent institution’ under the 2008 Constitution, was even more forceful in its defence of the judges’ decision not to appear before the committee. Citing specific provisions, the JSC said that the Majlis should stop interfering in the judiciary and should respect the separation of powers as guaranteed under the constitution.

The JSC cited Article 141 (c) of the constitution, which reads thus: “No officials performing public functions, or any other persons, shall interfere with and influence the functions of the courts.” It further referred to Article 21 (b) of the Law on the Judicial Services Commission and said that it was the sole authority for holding judges accountable to their actions. Further, the JSC has also Article 9 of the Bill on Judges as legal foundation for its arguments against judicial interference by the Majlis. The JSC may have a point, considering that ‘Institution Commissions’ such as this one were given constitutional protection only to free subordinate organs of the government from perceived interference and influence by the Executive and the rest.

MDP members on the parliamentary committee have denied any linkage between the case against President Nasheed and the summoning of the trial judges. MDP’s Parliamentary Group Deputy Leader Ali Waheed, chairing the committee, has also described the actions of the judges and the JSC as well as the Supreme Court’s encouragement of their behaviour as a “cat-and-mouse” game played by the Judiciary. “What we are witnessing is a ‘cat-and-mouse’ or a ‘hide-and-seek’ game being played between Parliament and the judiciary. If that is the case, we are going to play the cat-and-mouse chase, because we are not going to step back from our responsibilities,” Minivan News quoted him as telling a news conference after the judges failed to appear before the committee.

Ali Waheed denied that they were summoning the three judges “to settle scores or for a personal vendetta or to destroy their reputations”, but within the course of executing their legal duties.

“As the chair of Parliament’s Government Oversight Committee, I shall continue to execute my duties and we believe the constitution allows us to summon anyone with regard to our concerns and we will do so. So I sincerely urge them not to hide behind a constitutional clause dictating the responsibilities of the judges,” Waheed said, maintaining that the committee’s intentions were sincere and that it was being very “respectful” and “patient”.

According to Minivan News, Ali Waheed went on to add: “These people are those who must lead by example (in upholding the law) but what we see is that neither the Anti-Corruption Commission, nor the Auditor-General, not even Parliament is being allowed to hold these people accountable. They can’t be above the law and should not even think they are,” he continued. “What we are repeatedly reassuring them is that we will not allow committee members to question them on matters not in their mandate.”

Waheed’s fellow MDP parliamentarian Ahmed Hamza argued that the judges’ decision was in contrast to principles of rule of law, which were fundamental to a democratic State. “In every democracy it is the people from whom the powers of the State are derived. Parliament represents the people, and their actions reflect the wish of the people, so all authorities must respect the decisions,” he said. Hamza, according to Minivan News, reiterated that the current system of separation of powers holds the three arms of the State accountable to one another through a system of checks-and-balances.

Hamza dismissed the claims made by pro-government parties that the committee was attempting to influence the on-going trial of President Nasheed. “We are not trying to defend Nasheed, all we are trying to do is to carry out our duties and responsibilities vested in the constitution. We will not question them about any ongoing trial, nor will we comment on their verdicts and decisions,” Minivan News quoted Hamza as saying further.

Democratic precedents

The committee’s summons for the three Judges was formally routed through Parliament Speaker Abdulla Shahid, thus conferring the authority of the Majlis. For an infant democracy, the current controversy has the potential to create a constitutional deadlock of a new kind, after President Nasheed in mid-2010 ordered the closure of the Supreme Court by the nation’s armed forces for a day. The period also witnessed a deadlock of sorts between the Executive and the Legislature, where the present-day ruling parties were in the Opposition and held a collective majority. However, the current deadlock has greater potential for inflicting deeper constitutional wounds than the rest. At the centre of the issue however would be the Executive, which prima facie has no role to play but may be called upon to resolve the issue, nonetheless, particularly if the situation were to go out of hand in the coming days and weeks.

It is not as if other democracies have not faced similar or near-similar problems. What is, however, unique to the Maldivian situation is that in the absence of political, legal and constitutional precedents of its own, the temptation for each arm of the State to assert its relative supremacy and consequent paramountcy against one another could be too tempting to test and also resist.

Elsewhere there have been many instances of the kind, though even there does not seem to be any parallel of the Maldivian kind where judges have been summoned before a parliamentary committee to comment on issues after they had assumed judicial offices.

In the US and many other western democracies, parliament and parliamentary committees have both the right and responsibility to vet prospective judges to superior courts nominated by the executive, and also vote on such nominations, where required. It is so in those countries when it comes to other senior governmental appointments, including envoys to foreign countries. The Maldives follows such a scheme, yet in the case of judges, as the 2010 controversy showed, the differences were over nominations to the JSC, not of individual judges, particularly at the subordinate levels. Incidentally, in none of the western democracy is there a known precedent of a serving member of the subordinate judiciary being summoned by a parliamentary committee. They are often left to the administrative control of the higher judiciary, which only is subject to the option of impeachment of its individual members by the legislature.

In neighbouring India, which is the world’s largest and possibly a more complex democracy at work than its western counterparts, issues involving the judiciary and the legislature are confined to two broad-spectrum spheres, other than in matters of ‘impeachment’ (which was effectively used twice since Independence, with 50 per cent success rate). In India, the judiciary and the legislature have often come into conflict over the former staying the operation of any legislative ruling in terms of actions initiated against individuals called to bar. Where a final verdict is available, the legislature concerned has often abided by the judicial verdict even in such matters.

Judicial intervention in legislative action in India otherwise has been confined mostly to the Speaker’s rulings or initiatives in matters pending before him under the anti-defection law. The law came into force in the mid-eighties, close to 40 years after independence, and opened up a new chapter on legislative jurisprudence of the kind. While holding the law, empowering the Speaker of the legislature concerned, as the final arbiter of what constituted ‘defection’ by an individual member or a group in a parent party, the higher judiciary applied a kind of checks-and-balances in the application of the rule to individual cases, based on facts and circumstances. The Supreme Court’s judgment in the ‘Manipur Assembly Speaker case’ defined and restricted the role of the Speaker under the anti-defection law. This was however followed by the Apex Court’s verdict in the ‘S R Bommai case’ (1994) which in fact sought to expand the scope and role of the legislature in deciding a government’s floor majority.

As coincidence would have it, almost every Third World, South Asian democracy seems to have witnessed issues involving the judiciary and the legislature, with the executive coming to be willy-nilly involved, by extension. In Pakistan, the supremacy of the Judiciary ultimately dictated that the Legislature’s pro-confidence resolution did not have the required legal and constitutional binding, with the result, Prime Minister Yousaf RazaGilani quit on court orders. His successor, Raja Pervez Ashraf, after indicating to go Gilani’s way has obliged the Supreme Court’s directive in writing to the Swiss Government on the bank accounts of the nation’s President, Asif Ali Zardari.

In ‘revolutionary’ Nepal, the incumbent government promptly followed the Supreme Court directive on holding fresh elections to the Constituent Assembly without seeking to extend its term further. In Pakistan and Bangladesh, over the past couple of years, the respective Supreme Court have held preceding constitutional amendments passed under the military regime unconstitutional, and no section of the incumbent Legislature has contested the same. More recently in Sri Lanka, the legislature was said to be in a seeming conflict with the judiciary, but on record, senior Ministers were deployed to annul all such apprehensions.

It is in the larger context that Maldives has to view the emerging controversy involving the legislature and judiciary, which if left unaddressed, has the potential to rock the constitutional boat further.

Considering however the telescoping of the democratic process that Maldives has adopted unintentionally, as the events and consequent constitutional issues have shown, the possibility of further clarity on the overall spectrum appearing at the end of the tunnel on this core issue too cannot be ruled out. Either way, the stake-holders need to handle the issues and the attendant controversies with the knowledge, accommodation and sensitivity that they demand.

The writer is a Senior Fellow at Observer Research Foundation

All comment pieces are the sole view of the author and do not reflect the editorial policy of Minivan News. If you would like to write an opinion piece, please send proposals to [email protected]

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)