Month: December 2006

On Saturday, the Justice Ministry’s Aisha Shujune, announced defamation regulations in the Maldives were to be changed from January 1, 2007, to make it a civil offence with maximum damages set at Rf.1 million.

The next day, after a wave of complaint, Information Minister, Mohamed Nasheed, announced the changes had been ‘parked’.

Then yesterday, in a media briefing, the Information Minister, the Justice Minister, Mohamed Jameel and the Attorney General, Hassan Saeed, turned out to reaffirm that the changes will take place.

The new regulations are to be instituted by ministerial decree, without going through parliament.

This means from next year, breach of defamation regulations will carry a maximum fine of Rf.1 million (US$ 78 125) for “meaningful loss,” and will no longer incur a banishment sentence. There will also be fines for “material loss,” where a claimant can ask for compensation for income lost as a result of damage to his reputation or “honour”.

The new restrictions will be imposed retrospectively, to be applicable to anything communicated since September 1, 2006, leaving many journalists open to lawsuits for regulations which had not existed in the same form at the time, and which they would not have known about at the time.

The double u-turn comes after this website’s sister newspaper, Minivan Daily, lodged a complaint with the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives regarding the changes. “It is completely in violation of due process,” says senior staff member, Nazim Sattar.

There are fears this may spark a fresh round of litigation against various newspapers and magazines. Minivan is seriously concerned that it will become subject to retrospective defamation lawsuits filed by government ministers, though in private conversation they assure the company that this will not be the case.

Many other journalists are known to be concerned about the changes, but in conversation with Minivan News have been reluctant to comment until they see the proposals in print. The government has promised to furnish journalists with the plans in writing some time next week.

“Firstly…It’s a shame and it’s dangerous to create such a regulatory framework without the legal backing, and secondly – the fact that four months have been advanced to the implementation date – that is a signal that it is politically motivated. If they were sincere, then they shouldn’t have done that,” said Ibrahim Hussein Zaki, Acting President of the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP).

There is also the big issue of the absence of any Freedom of Information legislation to protect journalists or politicians. Ministers have said they will try and pass those proposals in a similar method, through by-passing parliament, but are making no promises.

The definition of the offence will also seemingly be changed, and officials read out the new version to the assembled media on Saturday. It was largely based on the new Defamation Bill.

Translated by Minivan, it says defamation will be committed: “if the honour or reputation of such person alive or dead, or his family member is compromised due to what had been said about him; or if respect or designation obtained by him in his business or work or vocation related to him is compromised; or because of what had been said, if the defamed encounters reluctance by people to deal with him, or refusal to deal with him; or if he encounters a change in the way people showed respect to him, or if people showed dislike or hatred towards him.”

“Defamatory language can be expressed directly or indirectly or metaphorically,” the draft legislation reads.

Defamation will also be deemed to have taken place: “if something defamatory is attributed or thought or understood towards someone by what is spoken by a person, or by writing, or announced aloud or by words let loose, or by indication or signal or movement.”

A London based freedom of expression NGO, Article 19, has described the new Defamation Bill as “vague”, “confusing”, “internally inconsistent”, and “poorly drafted.”

In its report on the Bill, it said it is: “concerned that the bill does not protect journalists from defamation even if the information they report is factually correct. According to the bill, not only does a journalist’s article have to be truthful, it also has to contribute to ‘social harmony.’

Proof of the truth of any impugned statements should fully absolve defamation defendants of any liability in relation to an allegation of harm to reputation. This is recognised in many countries around the world and reflects the basic principle that no one has the right to defend a reputation they do not deserve. If the matter complained of is true, the plaintiff has no right to claim that it should not be publicized,” Article 19 states.

The NGO also takes issue with the notion of “honour” which is raised in the bill, saying it is: “a subjective notion that goes well beyond the idea of reputation, which is the esteem in which other members of society hold a person. If restrictions on freedom of expression are based on subjective notions, they will inevitably fail.”

The proposed changes come only days after the Attorney General, Hassan Saeed, complained to an assembled audience of ministers and diplomats that most of the systemic reform in the Maldives had been made by presidential decree, rather than through parliament.

That speech was deemed too controversial for the transcript to be released to the press.

Neither the Information Minister, nor the Justice Minister nor the Attorney General have answered calls from Minivan News for comment.

Journalists are now citing the following concerns about the regulation changes:

1. The media was not given a written copy of the proposed changes to study and reflect upon.
2. The compensation of Rf.1m for a meaningful loss, as opposed to material loss, is bigger than blood money for killing someone, which is Rf.100 000. (Under Islamic law, blood money can be paid to the family of a murdered person by the killer to absolve him of guilt, only if the family agree to forgive him)
3. The legality of suing someone retrospectively, four months after the alleged offence, under a new regulation that was not in force at the time is uncertain.
4. The Freedom of Information Act, which would clear up many legal loopholes and add a degree of protection to journalists, has not yet been passed.
5. The judiciary is not yet institutionally independent.
6. Newspaper vendors and printers are also implicated in defamation.
7. The absence of a mechanism for the judge to decide whether the author of any alleged defamation had attempted to check the facts and find the truth.
8. The government has so far failed to explain its reasons for making the regulation applicable for 4 months past.
9. The regulation appears contradictory to the principles of the reform bills in the Majlis.
10. The changes offer no immunity to journalists.
11. There has been minimal consultation and study with journalists and politicians regarding this legislation and their rights.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

The Maldives yesterday narrowly missed out on being elected to the committee of a UN anti-torture group.

In a meeting held at the Palace of Nations in Geneva, Switzerland, a ten-person international subcommittee for an anti-torture protocol was elected by member states. Maldives came eleventh, with 16 votes out of a possible 29. The U.K. topped the poll with 24 votes.

The Maldives government signed up to the UN’s Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture (OPCAT) in late 2005. It came into force in June this year.

Only 29 nations have joined so far, not including the United States. The Maldives is currently the only country in Asia to have ratified the Protocol, though Cambodia and Timor-Lester have signed up and are awaiting ratification.

The scheme establishes an international monitoring system to try to prevent torture of prisoners – the subcommittee will work with national organisations, like the Human Rights Commission, to try to achieve this.

The group’s powers will include the ability to make unannounced visits to jails, after which the subcommittee of diplomats will be able to make recommendations to the states signed up. But the body will not have the power to enforce its recommendations.

The government is upbeat about the organisation, calling it: “an historic day for the prevention of torture in the Maldives and around the world.”

In a press release it added: “The Government’s goal is to attain the very highest standards of torture prevention and we welcome international and national scrutiny of our progress towards that goal by the Subcommittee and the national preventative mechanism respectively.”

But the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) dismisses the government’s move as just a ploy to gain “international attention”.

Ameen Faisal, Shadow Defence Minister, says: “Very recently I have been out of [jail] and although they did not torture us, there are various people who have maybe not been physically tortured, but mentally yes.” He remains unconvinced by the government’s rhetoric.

A number of MDP leaders and members have been tortured in the past. They remain fiercely sceptical of the government’s claims to new found respect for human rights.

The ten states elected to the subcommittee were Argentina, Costa Rica, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Mexico, Poland, Spain, United Kingdom and Uruguay.

The OPCAT was adopted by the United Nations on 18 December 2002 and formally entered into force, with the twentieth State ratification, on 22 June 2006. The Maldives was one of the 20 original members States of the OPCAT, having signed the instrument on 14 September 2005 and formally acceded on 15 February 2006.

The newly elected Subcommittee is expected to hold its first session in Geneva from the 19 to 23 February 2007.

The 29 States Parties to the OPCAT are: Albania, Argentina, Armenia, Benin, Bolivia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Georgia, Honduras, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Republic of Moldova, Senegal, Serbia, Spain, Sweden, Ukraine, United Kingdom, and Uruguay.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Police Spokesman, Corporal Shiyam, has said six people have now been arrested after a rash of gang violence in Male’, which has left a total of ten people injured, including three policemen. The police have not released any names to the press.

As a result of the unrest, patrols have been stepped up and there is now a highly visible police presence on the streets.

Investigation is ongoing, but Shiyam says the violence is not political. He says it is the result of long standing gang rivalries. When asked whether many of the gang members were drug users, he replied, “maybe.”

A large amount of private property was damaged, including cars, shops and offices. State newspaper Haveeru reported a total of 17 ‘public places’ were damaged. The newspaper went on to say: “While the mob had been out destroying public property, the Police were nowhere to be seen.”

In response to the claim they had not done enough, police Spokesman Shiyam said: “Police tried to stop the violence.” He insists they did all in their powers to stop the clashes.

It appears this latest rash of violence has been sparked by two specific incidents, the beating of a thirteen-year-old boy, who was hospitalised last week and, on Sunday at around 11:30pm, a violent attack on a man at Trends restaurant.

The incidents sparked retribution which saw trouble escalate throughout Sunday night. Armed gangs were seen roaming the streets with swords, knives, bats and other weapons, causing damage to property.

Gang warfare in the overcrowded capital has now reached a level which the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) says is unprecedented, and “totally shocking.”

There continues to be a serious drug problem in Male’ with many people addicted to “brown sugar”, or heroin, which has been a source of various social problems for some time.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Two people suffered serious burns last night after being struck by lightning whilst travelling in a dhoni boat, state newspaper Miadhu reports. It is the result of a continuing rash of bad weather that has hit the Maldives, despite the official start of summer just over a week ago.

The men are named as Ibrahim Hameed, 16 and Masoodhu Mohamed, 43, from Vilufushi. Health authorities have not confirmed the reports despite numerous calls to the Buruni Health Post, where they are being treated, as well as the Medical Services Department and Thaa Atoll Hospital.

There have also been reports of two mini-tornados in Thinadoo, Gaaf Daal Atoll and Nilhandoo, Faafu Atoll, which have damaged property.

The National Meteorological Office says 19 millimetres of rain has fallen over the capital Male’ in the last three days, leaving many places flooded. The National Defence Force is now working to clear the flooding.

Numerous floods have also been reported in Laamu Atoll, Maavashu island. Fonadhoo, Isdhu Kaladhoo, Maamendhoo and Gan islands in Laamu Atoll have also suffered flooding. The floods have left several people displaced, taken out electricity and damaged food supplies.

The bad conditions are unusual for December, which is the first month of the official summer time in the Maldives. Recently there were reports that Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes, who were on their honeymoon in the country, cut their break short because of the continued bad weather.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Michael Lord-Castle, the leader of the controversial Global Protection Committee, has vowed to return to the Maldives in defiance of a life-time ban. Speaking in a rare interview in southern England, he said he had received assurances from the Maldivian Democratic Party that the GPC’s operation in Malé in November had been a great success and he was confident the MDP would be inviting them back.

Lord-Castle and four of his associates were deported from Maldives and banned for life. He indicated that several of the GPC personnel involved were citizens of Qatar. Others were from Great Britain.

However the mystery of GPC team’s purpose in travelling to Maldives deepened when he revealed that MDP leader, Zaki, had appealed to him to retract a statement given to police that the MDP had invited them. That statement is now part of the evidence submitted to the court trying Zaki on charges of sedition and creating disharmony. Lord-Castle had previously stated in the Maldives media that his statement was deliberately falsified and he signed it with the name “Donald Duck”, the Walt Disney comic cartoon character, as a means of undermining the statement’s credibility.

When pressed about the government’s assertion that the GPC had been sent by Nirj Deva, the Sri Lanka born British member of the European Parliament, he said this was not true either. But he revealed that Nirj Deva had introduced the GPC to the MDP – but only at a party in Colombo some five years ago, a social event attended by officials of the British High Commission and businessmen based in Sri Lanka.

He then confirmed that the MDP had indeed invited GPC to Maldives this year as observers of the events leading up to the aborted 10 November demonstration.

He also claims to have been commissioned to produce a report to the European Parliament on the political situation in Maldives, but the European Parliament has denied this, and Lord-Castle refuses to say which part of the European Parliament has received his report, which means it has not been possible to verify his claim.

The conclusion of his report is a recommendation that there should be a total boycott of tourism to Maldives, to put pressure on President Gayoom to resign. He does not say how this would work.

He denied that the GPC’s purpose was to foment violence or bring about a coup in November. “Believe you me, if we had intended to bring about a coup, there would have been a coup,” he said.

Nirj Deva MEP also vigorously denied being behind the GPC’s presence in Malé.

In a statement he said, “I did not, at any stage, request for Michael Lord Castle and/or the Global Protection Committee to enter the Maldives. The very suggestion that I have a legion of private mercenaries under my command is flattering, yet false. The suggestion, as reported by some pro-Government groups in the Maldives that I seek to profit from his involvement with the Opposition is false.”

Michael Lord-Castle denies that his group are mercenaries, despite terminology on the GPC’s web site that is semi-military in nature and boasts of providing physical protection and military training. Its personnel are freelancers from various countries that are available for hire to go into trouble spots around the world.

Global Protection Committee describes itself in promotional materials as a multi-government controlled and funded organisation that specialises in intelligence gathering, monitoring of money laundering and asset transfers, surveillance and tactical weapon and combat training. Its diverse portfolio of activities also includes the tracking of narcotics and munitions movements.

The primary role of the GPC is the provision of “protection” to member and participating countries by promoting the flow of high security information. Lord-Castle again denies that this protection, provided by foreign freelance security personnel under his command, is anything to do with being mercenaries.

GPC started its operations in the 1950s. While much of their work is semi-military in nature, the majority of its personnel are from a civilian background with full-time jobs in industry who can be called upon to participate in operations. “Instead of charging through the desert or hacking our way through the jungle, we are more at home behind a computer analysing the movement of assets – those assets being people, money, narcotics, munitions, equipment and transport. Nonetheless we will always have our specialist divisions that can do the charging through deserts and hacking their way through jungles when needed” says the GPC.

Michael Lord-Castle denies that this implies they are mercenaries. “Mercenaries destabilize, but we go in to stabilize dangerous situations,” he claims. He describes GPC as “a highly focused intelligence gathering organisation”.

The GPC claims to consist of current and past world leaders, and security and military specialists. It provides no information to verify who these may be. It says they provide the local knowledge that other organisations lack. “Although private in nature, we are a multi-government controlled and funded organisation.”

Lord-Castle says GPC’s role is to train, monitor and provide recurrent training for teams consisting of between 150 and 500 personnel, being a mixture of civilian, police and military in all forms of intelligence gathering and the dissemination of information.

Another key area of GPC activity is guarding VIPs. “Any visiting dignitaries naturally expect to be protected, especially heads of state and diplomats. Consistent training brings your GPC unit to a constant state of readiness to provide such protection. Unit members are trained in all aspects of close protection including driving and aerial activities,” says the GPC promotional material. “Should you require urgent back-up or tactical support for specialised operations, indeed any form of emergency, other member countries can supply the GPC personnel required.”

Again, when pressed, Lord-Castle denies that such a range of semi-military activity defines GPC as mercenaries. He is reluctant to give any details of past operations or to supply contacts who could provide testimonials to their supposed success. Under further questioning, Lord-Castle admitted he had worked in both Palestine and Israel, also in Uganda, Afghanistan and numerous other world trouble spots. He gives no details that can allow his claims to be verified.

Since the controversy over the GPC’s presence in Maldives broke and has come under intense scrutiny, the Global Protection Committee’s web sites have disappeared from the Internet.

In his latest interview, Lord-Castle cited the GPC’s investigation of advance fee fraud, which took his teams all over the world, but eventually identified the source in a location in Nottingham in England. His clients had lost thousands of pounds to the fraudsters. GPC failed to get any money back for them.

This type of investigation is closer to Lord-Castle’s basic daily work. He has no military background himself, and is by profession an insolvency practitioner, advising individuals and small businesses who have got into financial difficulties and helping them to go bankrupt.

In a famous case in England, he helped a haulage trade client recover money owed by the supermarket giant, Tesco. The company’s headquarters were blockaded by 25 trucks until Tesco paid the outstanding invoices.

Lord-Castle also angered the authorities in France over the closure of a client’s fibre optics factory near Paris. His team removed valuable high-tech equipment from the premises during the night to avoid its being seized to pay off creditors. Lord-Castle told the BBC that he had acted in accordance with British law on company failures. He had clearly overlooked the fact that French law is different, and the fact that assets of a failed company belong to the administrators whose job is to pay those who are owed money, including the factory’s employees.

In 2001, Lord-Castle lost a lot of his own money in a failed attempt to create a business class airline, Blue Fox, with the former British Conservative cabinet minister, Lord Tebbit, on board as chairman. The airline failed to take off when the bottom fell out of the market for travel between the UK and USA in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist bombings. Two other companies, MaxJet and Eos have succeeded in the market since then, and a third is due to start up business class only air travel in 2007.

Lord-Castle’s assessment of Maldives politics and the call for a tourism boycott has been dismissed by the British travel industry as naïve and amateurish. It remains to be seen what the MDP thought they were getting from GPC by inviting them to observe the aborted 10 November demonstration. They do not want a travel ban and a wrecked Maldivian economy that would result. “A tourism boycott would be a bad hit for our economy,” said Zaki when asked for his reaction to Lord-Castle’s recommendation.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Police have confirmed that seven people have been injured and three arrested following two nights of gang violence in Male’. They say investigation is ongoing after scores of shops and offices were damaged in attacks, with windows broken and equipment damaged.

The disturbances are the result of ongoing clashes between various gangs, and it appears this latest rash of violence has been sparked by the beating of a thirteen-year-old boy, who was hospitalised last week.

That caused retribution which saw violence escalate through the night. It has now reached a level which the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) says is unprecedented, and “totally shocking.”

Police Spokesman, Corporal Shiyam, said he could not comment on whether or not weapons were used, but eyewitnesses say thugs were carrying knives and even swords.

“Police tried to stop the violence,” said Shiyam, who insists they did all in their powers to stop the clashes.

But not everyone agrees.

“Police did not take any measures to stop it,” says Abbas Adil, eyewitness and a friend of one of the injured men. “Being angry won’t solve any problem, right, because the police do not have control over some of the gangs,” he says.

According to Hamid Gafoor, Secretary General of the MDP: “this sort of thing, on this scale, is unprecedented in Male.’” He says he was amazed to see “teenagers running around with swords”.

“I just see the mob violence and the lack of policing and that makes me believe that there is a connection,” he said.

It is thought the gangs are manipulated by political factions and paid to act as agents provocateurs, but are mainly drug gangs.

“I would not relate it to the real politics…I would relate it to attempts by certain people to scare people,” he said.

In January this year, MDP member Shiruhaan was stabbed in the chest by thugs. There was some suggestion they had been in the pay of politicians.

There continues to be a serious drug problem in Male’ with many people addicted to “brown sugar”, or heroin, which has been a source of various social problems for some time.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Ibrahim Ismail, 42, more commonly known as Ibra, is a founding member of the main opposition party, the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP).

One of 14 children from a middle class family, he was schooled in Male’ before studying at university in Canberra, Australia.

There he studied for a Maths and Physics Undergraduate Degree before going on to complete a Postgraduate Diploma in Education and a Masters Degree in Planning and Philosophy.

On his return to the Maldives he worked as a teacher and lecturer before moving to the civil service educational sector.

There he stayed for nearly twenty years, focusing on educational planning and exams. His final post was Head of Quality Improvement before he quit “out of frustration”.

He then started to work as an independent social development and education consultant, cooperating with international development agencies and banks.

In 2004 he stood for election and was voted into the People’s Majlis to represent the Male’ constituency.

Since 1994, like many Maldivians, he has been in and out jail for his political dissent.

He is married with two children, a boy of 7 and a girl of 6.

***

Q. So tell me a little bit about your background first – about your past with the MDP and politics in the Maldives.

Well, I will start with the background of the politics – maybe that will make a more logical progression.

As you are most probably aware by now the Maldives has always had autocratic rulers. There hasn’t been proper democratic institutions. Even though we have had a constitution since the early 1930s much of it has really been paid lip service to, and the concept of rule of law, as one you will find in proper democracies, has never really been practiced, in that where there has been laws it has been largely seen as tools for the government and the state to control people and not necessarily as something that the government has to follow.

We have a long history of very autocratic rule, not just limited to the present regime. Only very brief flashes of possible democratic practices have been seen here and there and then very quickly snuffed out.

Q. So is that why you joined the MDP?

Yes. I was one of the initial 42 people who tried to register and operate MDP in 2001. That was because we came to a common belief that in order to dismantle this dictatorship we need to work collectively with the collective vision and we need to organize ourselves into some political thought form. But as you know our initial attempts to form a national Party was snuffed out by the government. It didn’t give us the opportunity to carry it forward and then one thing led to another and in 2005 finally the Government, under intense pressure, I would say from the international community and to an extent from grass roots public pressure, finally relented and they allowed the formation of political parties.

But it is still not a level playing field. The Government puts all the Government resources into containing the opposition and giving a free hand to the Government Party if you like.

So that is how I came into the MDP and how the MDP got off the ground, just very briefly of course there are a number of events which went into the making of it…

Q. And you have played a fairly significant role in the Party up until now, I mean, you have had some fairly important posts.

Yes. I was on the first council when the MDP started operating in exile in Colombo and in the U.K. That was when we were outlawed. While some of us like Nasheed and Latheef and Mausoom and others were working outside the Government, I was here in Male’ trying to get grass roots involved and hold some activities. I think the first political rally in the history of the Maldives, at least in the recent history, was what was started out as some public debates about reform in early 2004, mid 2004.

So that was when the real public activity started and I was there on the ground with them at the time. And since then after the Party was officially formed and recognized by the Government I was in the first Governing Council before proper office bearers were elected and then subsequently I was elected as the first president of the Party. I was in that post until the end of April, early May this year when I resigned, but even after that I have been a member in the Parliamentary Group of the party and the National Council of the Party until I left the Party a few days ago.

Q And presumably with that long history you just described you didn’t take the decision to leave lightly, so what was your motivation behind it?

Well it was not an easy decision to make, obviously, for many reasons, some practical, some emotional.

Emotional reasons being: as I have just described I have been a part of the MDP since the initial inception of the whole concept up until now, so there’s a lot of emotional attachment to the Party. I have done a lot of work for and within the Party in promoting the Party, setting up the Party, often at considerable risk and also a lot of my own supporters have joined the Party and now it’s a bit difficult to make that break.

The practical reasons, again, this puts me in a difficult position politically in that for the moment I am independent, and in a party based parliament it is not so easy to be effective as an independent, in theory at least.

But I think the Maldivian parliament is still in a flux, it is still getting used to the idea of parties and there still aren’t clear procedures of party politics within the parliament yet.

So, yes, it wasn’t an easy decision, it wasn’t taken lightly, a lot of thought went into it and a lot of waving to and fro, kind of thing – should I shouldn’t I. But I think at the end of the day the decision was more a pragmatic decision in terms of the democratisation of the country, the reform process and I felt that my contribution was being constrained by remaining in the party forever and I would have a much more vital role if I left the party – I could contribute more so that was what it ultimately boiled down to I think.

Q So when you say “constrained”, what do you mean?

Well it’s very complex, I mean normally one would expect when you are in a party you’ve got more like-minded people and you get strength from that and that was what I was hoping for initially, but I think we have to accept the fact that the MDP as it is, is not really a party formed around a particular political philosophy.

The binding force had been and continues to be a common goal of opposition to the current regime, which really is not a very viable political philosophy to my mind and I think as the Party is settling down the differences in political opinion are becoming more pronounced and at the end of the day what happens is there just isn’t enough room in the party for the divergent number of views as to how we should proceed, what should be the tactics and strategy.

So it’s always one or a couple of viewpoints which will dominate over the others and the other viewpoints then do not have enough room to operate within the Party. So increasingly I have found that my views have become a bit more isolated in the overall complex and therefore by remaining in the party I have always had to take a back foot and not been able to put my ideas into practice because I don’t believe that for as long as I remain the Party I should go and do my own thing, and if it comes to a point where it is not possible for me to sell my ideas within the Party it really means that the Party philosophy is not concordant with mine and it is time to leave and make your own way.

So it is not really any dissatisfaction with any particular people within the Party or any discord within the Party. I still see the people within the Party as my very good friends and colleagues and still working towards a common goal but maybe the paths that we have chosen differ too much to be working together as one party.

Q. But presumably in this sort of situation, where a society and a political system is trying hard to effectively allow democratic elections and a new government and so on, the mainstream opinion has been that it’s a good idea to have one large opposition party which has a wide enough base of support that it can realistically challenge the Government, and by leaving don’t you run a risk of weakening that one bloc?

I think that’s one legitimate way of looking at it but I think we should also be a little bit more creative in looking beyond the immediate.

I think what we are talking about here is fundamental differences in the approach that we take, so I like to think more optimistically, in that by making this division we are now in a better position, in a stronger position in that we will be attacking the regime on different fronts, whereas before the government has had to just try and focus all its attention into containing MDP.

If there are more people outside the MDP working towards the same things but in different ways than the Government will become extended more and that process will become more vulnerable to different points of attack if you like.

So I think that while it appears good to be one large bloc and appear very formidable by distributing that mass and bulk and power around him instead of just focussing on one point it has its advantages.

And the second thing is I think MDP has just become too large and too cumbersome. If you look at the past year or so, you see increasingly the MDP has had greater and greater difficulty in leading the Party towards common objectives towards a common goal and I think it’s a natural process of disintegration, if you like, and the longer we try to contain it the more energy we will be putting into simply containing the Party and that takes a lot of resources which we could be using to put the pressure on the government.

So overall I don’t think it’s a negative thing and foresee even more breakaways from the MDP in the near future.

Q. So is it fair to talk of a split in the MDP between those who advocate a kind of consensual approach, where they work within the system and within the parliament to achieve change, and those who see their role in dissent as more active, that they need to bring the people on to the streets and they need to protest and be seen to protest?

I don’t think the line between activism and the more legal type of protest, I don’t think it’s such a clear dichotomy there. I mean I have always been a strong advocate of trying to achieve the objectives through the parliamentary process but at the same time I have always supported public action, street action, demonstrations, because I think these two have to go together.

If you analyse the circumstances in which change has come about in the past you can see three elements at work:

One is the grass roots public action, the second is a strong parliament – opposition in the parliament and the third is the involvement of the international community.

We have actually for a period had all three elements quite strong in its presence and yet we have not really done it and that is because I think there has been poor coordination and poor alignment, taking more independent phases if you like and we need to bring those together and often the reason why this coordination has been difficult has been internal disputes within the party as to how we bring those about.

But now if those elements somehow separate out a little bit it will be easier to bring an external coordination I think because there isn’t that element of people being wary of each other, I mean it’s quite clear where it was going.

Q So what would you say was your political ideology, philosophy compared with that of the MDP?

As a political philosophy, ideology, I would subscribe to a social, liberal kind of ideology and I think MDP also espouses many of those elements so I suppose in that way it’s not all that different.

But my own outlook is not so conservative as some of the other elements within the MDP but at the same time not as radical as some other elements as well.

I believe strongly in dialogue, I believe strongly in consistency and I believe in taking a long-term perspective. But I believe the dominant ideology in the MDP has been short-term and it seems like that the main objective now has become the removal of Gayoom rather than reforming the system.

Some see the removal of Gayoom as a prerequisite for reform, whereas I see the reform process will ultimately lead to the automatic elimination of Gayoom from the picture.

So these are two very different approaches. I don’t see yet any way for us to get rid of Gayoom except through a free and fair election, but there will be others who say you can’t have a free and fair election with Gayoom in place. But I think it is possible and I think we just need to have a long term strategy where Gayoom just can’t…we have to put him into the corner through that approach, and ultimately he will just have to give in because we just have to eliminate all choices for him.

Q. So I guess the big question everyone is asking, then, is does this mean you are going to form a new party – a kind of third large party?

[Pauses] I, um, I think most probably yes.

I am still not in a position to say outright yes I am forming a party because I don’t believe a political party can be formed by one person. I think the formation of a sound political party requires an number of people who subscribe to a common belief and I am sure there are many, many people who subscribe to the kind of beliefs that I have but it’ll take some time, I think, for those people to converge and come together and start thinking about forming a party and all the rest that goes with it.

So yes the logical next step would be the formation of a party. I don’t know when yet, or exactly how I’m going to do it yet.

Q. It seems to me, although you say that you can’t form a party with one person, that a lot of the politics in the Maldives is very personality based and so, in that sense, although you will obviously need more than one person you can form a party around one person. Is that what you intend to do?

I would want to avoid that at all costs, because I don’t think that the long term sustenance and feasibility of a political party will be sound if you do it that way.

Okay, one or a few people will usually lead in these kind of things, but it is very important that whatever party is formed that those who subscribe to the party have to feel the ownership of the party. It has to be their thing otherwise you can’t keep it going.

So I wouldn’t want to, say, collect all the people who support Ibra and go and from Ibra’s party. Rather I would propose to people the kind of philosophy that I believe in and see if there are people who subscribe to that philosophy so that regardless of Ibra the party will, and should, keep going.

Q So how do you see the future of Maldivian politics in the next five years, say?

I think we are at a very critical juncture.

Point number one is I can’t see any way that we can go back to where we were. Second thing is I can’t see any way where we will stand where we are either, so by process of elimination the only thing left is to go forward.

So I think this reform process will continue regardless of elements who might try to stop the process or retard the process. I don’t think it is possible. I think it will just carry on gaining momentum, but there is a fear that unless we are very careful and we manage this properly, the country could go into further chaos. Further destructions of society might occur before things stabilise out and being the small society that we are I don’t know how much of that kind of instability we can absorb and sustain.

And then there is an element where I think for a brief period, at least, we will see increased corruption at the political level as those with vested interests try to retain what they have and make more. And then there are others who are trying to prevent that so there might be a period of that coming in, but I am an optimistic person by nature and I think that at the end of the day, the people will win and we will be better off in spite of all the difficulties we are going through now.

I think there is going to be political turbulence after Gayoom when that happens, and out of that turbulence hopefully some order will emerge. I am sure it will. Things will stabilise out because it is not the nature of Maldivian people to be very vengeful. Maldivians tend to forget these things quite quickly and get on with life; they bounce back into things quite quickly so as this couple of, maybe two, three years we might have some sort of uncertainty.

After that I think things should stabilise then and I think we will emerge into a young democracy and then, I think our greatest challenge will not be the removal of Gayoom, out greatest challenge will be to manage the affairs of the state in a democratic fashion after Gayoom.

Thank you.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)