Author: Sextus Empiricus

Comment: Be religious, Prince – lessons from Machiavelli

Is there anything to doubt about the government of President Mohamed Nasheed’s commitment to protecting Islam in the country?

There is a full-fledged Islamic Ministry, granted almost limitless freedoms to go about its work – which is hitherto unseen in the country. There is also a minister from the religious Adhaalath Party sitting in cabinet meetings, provided at least one day a week to raise issues with the president and his cabinet.

Religious intellectuals also have a free reign in preaching and practicing whatever interpretation of Shari’a they deem is valid. This is new too.

There is a thriving religious civil society with dozens of highly active and wealthy religious NGOs; NGOs that could hold mass rallies with a days notice. We have also seen the largest religious gatherings ever in the country’s history entertained by such popular and high-profile figures as Zakir Naik.

A whole subculture, with apparently increasing outward religious symbolism and traditionally unusual practices, has been made available in the country.

Now, there is no reason why all the above should not be the case. After all, under a chapter entitled “Social Justice” the Maldivian Democratic Party’s (MDP) election manifesto, there is a whole section devoted to “Protection of Islamic Faith”. [1]

Yet from a modern liberal democratic point of view, some of those policies are chillingly discriminatory and well beyond the legitimate role of a democratic state.

If so, one wonders what has gone wrong with the government’s religious policies?

One explanation can be gleaned from nothing other than Niccolo Machiavelli’s The Prince. Besides the book’s dizzying insights into the existence of different values systems, chapter XVIII of the book shows great wisdom about the power of religion in politics.

In the book’s characteristic style, Machiavelli says:

“And you have to understand this, that a prince, especially a new one, cannot observe all those things for which men are esteemed, being often forced, in order to maintain the state, to act contrary to faith, friendship, humanity, and religion. Therefore it is necessary for him to have a mind ready to turn itself accordingly as the winds and variations of fortune force it…

For this reason, a prince ought to take care that he never lets anything slip from his lips that is not replete with the above-named five qualities, so that he may appear to him who sees and hears him altogether merciful, faithful, humane, upright, and religious. There is nothing more necessary to appear to have than this last quality….” [Emphasis added]

While for many people Machiavelli’s advice can be nothing but realpolitik, there is a double lesson here: insights into the fact that morality is not reducible to a single overarching value.

That is, our life is a sort of moral multiverse with several different values and considerations that could sometimes conflict with one another, forcing us to sacrifice one good value for another.

For instance, for a government, “survivability” and “stability” are extremely important values. Yet survivability or stability can conflict with the “right to privacy”, “political legitimacy”, or “liberty”. This can be the case when, for instance, a government eavesdrops on the private telephone conversations of opposition MPs, subscribes to a highly undemocratic interpretation of the Constitution on cabinet confirmation, or arrests an MP without due process.

We ask: unless you are a sort of fundamentalist monist, why should one value always override the others?

Government stability (for example, having a functioning cabinet) can conflict with due process, such as running parliament. Yet, seven out of the president’s 12 cabinet nominations were rejected!

We ask: what can be always more important: process or outcome? To what extent can a president let processes run their course and let outrageous outcomes result from them?

That is the first lesson from Machiavelli.

The other lesson is that although it is not the only value, religion is extremely important in politics.

History teaches us that a state cannot and should not try to downplay religion when religion is a key marker of social identity. Shah-era Iran was an example.

For the majority of Maldivians, identifying with Islam is part and parcel of being a national citizen. Religion is a key marker of our social identity. Like it or not, conservatism still runs deep. Islamism is on the rise.

The perceived downplaying of religious salutations and symbolism in public speeches, the perceived closeness with Jews and Christians and distance to Islamic countries, the public display of play, fun, “relaxation” and dance, the attempts to change regulations and traditions without popular legitimacy, all mean there is a perceived anti-religiosity about the work of government. This includes president Nasheed himself.

So what lessons can we take from Machiavelli? Well, for one:

There is nothing more necessary to appear to have than this last quality [i.e. religiosity]

Sheikhs Fareed and Shaheem do it masterfully – although, for instance, rumours about their secret affairs and secret riba-incurring bank accounts abound.

Gayoom was almost flawless at that too – although, for instance, he led a brutal autocracy.

[1] http://presidencymaldives.gov.mv/downloads/menifesto-en.pdf

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: In love of democracy

Recent political developments not only confirm that democracy certainly is not ‘the only game in town’ – which is the simple test of consolidated democracy according to political scientists Alfred Stepan and Juan Linz – but also make one doubt whether there has been a completed democratic transition in the Maldives.

Two issues – the increasing inability of the government to generate new policies, and the de jure and de facto sharing and blurring of the powers of the executive with those of the legislature – put into question the transition to democracy.

‘Cash for votes’ in the parliament, the failures of the judiciary, reaction from government to predatory politics, the inaction of the civil society, the unreflective ‘political society’ polarized between two violent tribes, show that games from the authoritarian era can still be the favourites in town.

Failure of institutions VS human failure

Sri Lanka’s foreign minister, who is also trained in law, recently argued that the reasons for the current impasse lie in the institutional design of the 2008 constitution. President Nasheed agreed at a press conference on Wednesday. The unique features of presidentialism are also the institutional reasons for similar political deadlock as argued by others like Linz.

Yet institutionalism is not a sufficient reason – for either evil or good.

For, even perfect or just constitutions may not result in good outcomes or realisations.

As Nobel laureate Amartya Sen powerfully argues in his recent book The Idea of Justice the compliance of people’s behaviour with the demands of institutions is necessary for comprehensive good outcomes.

Wealthy parliamentarians can buy votes, minority parties can filibuster and disrupt parliament’s work, parliamentarians can block legislation and misuse constitutional provisions, authorities can arbitrarily arrest people and bypass due process, judges can be biased, executive can ignore court orders, and oversight bodies can be power-ridden.

To avoid, therefore, ‘justice in the world of fish’ where powerful predators devour the rest, both institutions and behavioral compliance, both processes and substance, are essential.

The persistence of predatory culture

Recent revelations show that predatory practices in the country are shockingly persistent. If what Larry Diamond, who has extensively written on political transitions, describes as ‘predatory society’ is an ideal type, the Maldives may not be far away from it. He describes, and I quote in length from Civic Communities and Predatory Societies:

In the predatory society, people do not get rich through productive activity and honest risk-taking. They get rich by manipulating power and privilege, by stealing from the state, exploiting the weak, and shirking the law.

Political actors in the predatory society will use any means and break any rules in the quest for power and wealth. Politicians in the predatory society bribe electoral officials, beat up opposition campaigners, and assassinate opposing candidates. Presidents silence criticism and eliminate their opponents by legal manipulation, arrest, or murder. Ministers worry first about the rents they can collect and only second about whether the equipment they are purchasing or the contract they are signing has any value for the public.

Legislators collect bribes to vote for bills.

Military officers order weapons on the basis of how large the kickback will be. Ordinary soldiers and policemen extort rather than defend the public. In the predatory society, the line between the police and the criminals is a thin one, and may not exist at all. In fact, in the predatory society, institutions are a façade. The police do not enforce the law.

Judges do not decide the law.

Customs officials do not inspect the goods. Manufacturers do not produce, bankers do not invest, borrowers do not repay, and contracts do not get enforced. Any actor with discretionary power is a rent-seeker. Every transaction is twisted to immediate advantage. Time horizons are extremely short because no one has any confidence in the collectivity and its future. This is pure opportunism: get what you can now. Government is not a public enterprise but a criminal conspiracy, and organized crime heavily penetrates politics and government.

Again, he says that “Corruption is the core phenomenon of the predatory state.”

The problem with such a society is that it cannot sustain democracy.

How to leave Las Vegas

President Nasheed’s government no doubt represents a victory against the forces of predation. However, some reasonable people have questioned whether his government’s recent reaction to predatory politics was legitimately conducted.

Of course, as value-pluralists like Isaiah Berlin remind us, we may take the risk of drastic action in desperate situations. So to give the government the benefit of the doubt, legitimacy aside, it is questionable if the government’s actions such as arrests and fomenting masses will lead to improvement.

Writing about political deadlocks, political scientist Scott Mainwaring has this to say:

“Common among populist presidents, such a pattern [i.e. mobilizing masses] easily leads to escalating mutual suspicions and hostilities between the president and the opposition.”

Moreover, by detaining otherwise predatory characters on questional grounds, we are giving them the benefit of victimhood and making them ever strong and popular. There is no greater tragedy to responsible opposition politics than having predatory characters as the most popular.

To my mind, therefore, there is no alternative to talks as an immediate measure, and strengthening institutions of horizontal accountability such as the Anti-Corruption Commission, the Audit Office, and the judiciary for long haul.

As a discursive yet instrumental tool, government must strengthen its public communication and pressure the parliament into compliance through public sphere.

As a permanent policy, it is time the government took for granted that it is a minority in the parliament, gave way for real negotiations rather than consultations, and got prepared for painful compromises.

Politics after all is the art of the possible.

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: From the perils of presidentialism to deliberative politics

The argument, which was most famously advanced by the political scientist Juan Linz, that presidentialism is more prone to executive-legislative deadlocks is by now well established. Deadlocks are bad because they can break down democracy as they did in Latin America.

In fact, when we contemplate on the political events unfolding over the past months, and more dramatically in the past few days, what we see is a textbook diagnosis and explanation of the ‘perils of presidentialism’.

With the parliament delaying crucial legislation such as tax bills which are necessary to ensure distributive social justice (and, of course, urged by the International Monetary Fund); consistently encroaching on the democratic mandate of the president such as messing up the decentralisation policies in president’s manifesto; blocking government administration through unwarranted no-confidence attempts; hampering government’s key policy programme of privatisation and public-private partnerships; and attempting to block a number of state welfare provisions, the country now is in a fierce executive-legislative conflict.

Again, the context for this gridlock is explained in political literature: a minority government, multipartism and poorly disciplined parliamentarians, and dual democratic legitimacy given to the president and the parliament.

Vain actions and reactions

The main recommendations from such comparative politics literature in the face of political impasse – such as shifting to a parliamentary or semi-presidential system and/or changing electoral rules to encourage a two-party system – seem to be difficult if not impossible in the short run.

No person in this country will be more frustrated than President Nasheed when his policy programmes get blocked or hampered. This frustration will be compounded in our competitive political environment, where public expectations are so high, when the country is in an austerity period, and while the imperative for delivery overshoots as the dates when voters can sanction politicians draw close.

As there is no easy mechanism (such as dissolving the parliament) to resolve such conflicts in presidentialism unlike parliamentarianism, the government has resorted to one of the few means left to a president in a deadlock situation.

The president had been resisting calls for arresting culprits responsible for past injustices citing good arguments such as an incompetent judiciary which itself is implicated in sustaining an autocracy. Tuesday’s arrests, however, I believe will only escalate the political rifts.

Gridlocks have often plagued crucial legislation in the US and continue to frustrate even President Obama, who has over 100 job nominations and crucial legislation yet to be even voted in the Congress. What Ted Kennedy called the ‘great unfinished business’ of health care reform – a basic ingredient of social justice – was repeatedly blocked in the US, which had led to thousands of unnecessary deaths in the most opulent nation on earth. In what has been one of the most serious deadlocks, the budget crisis of 1995 forced government agencies to shutdown when Clinton administration was a minority.

The Majlis has no doubt gone against the spirit of the constitution (for instance, delaying or passing legislation with implications for basic social and economic rights while wasting time and public money over petty business), but it is unconvincing to claim they have clearly contravened the letter of it.

It may be true that arresting two opposition MPs is not necessarily unwelcome based on ‘substance’ but was so based on ‘process’. While ‘substance’ does matter, ‘processes’ also matter because they contribute to the hard-won, delicate democratic and liberal legitimacy of the government.

The ‘great game of politics’, therefore, must be by the rules of the game.

Why and way forward?

While well-intended and solid policy programmes of the government are delayed and hampered, the idea I want to float is that a minority government too can mobilise the public sphere, and play the great game of politics within rule of law through deliberative politics.

That is, while deliberative democracy is usually justified on its potential for more just and legitimate policy-making, I want to conjecture that deliberative democracy can also have instrumental benefits for a minority government.

If one looks through all controversial policy changes of the government, one thing is unchanged: there is no effective pre-crisis public communication and deliberations programme.

From decentralisation to the alcohol regulation to Islam/Divehi teaching, and to airport privatisation – which otherwise are all solid and beneficial policies – the government did a miserable public communication and deliberations job, if any. Again, it is a ‘process’ failure that have led to ‘substance’ failures.

The meeting with the business sector stakeholders on airport privatisation, the press conferences, news releases, television programmes, and the photographs of the new airport all came too late and too inadequately. And even when all this came, the government appeared messy and contradictory. There was simply no pre-crisis public communication and deliberation programme in this.

Sceptics would say that this suggestion is utopian and politics is too power-ridden and unalterable to public opinion. I concede to an extent, but, as the most prominent proponent of deliberative democracy, Jürgen Habermas, argues in Popular Sovereignty as Procedure:

“[R]epresentatives normally do not want to expose themselves to the criticism of their voters. After all, voters can sanction their representatives at the next opportunity, but representatives do not have any comparable way of sanctioning voters.”

The wealthy politicians in the parliament can indeed publicly buy parliamentarians, but they too cannot publicly buy public opinion.

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)