Month: May 2009

At the DRP press conference last night, a Minivan News journalist asked whether the DRP believed the former government was completely free of corruption. Ibrahim “Mavota” Shareef did not deny the existence of corruption but instead, swiftly shifted the focus onto the presidential commission.

“I’m not saying that,” said Shareef in answer to the question. “If there is any corruption whatsoever, this government can investigate through proper channels and through legal means.”

But shifting the focus was not a shrewd piece of political manoeuvring by Shareef. In fact, no manoeuvring was required because the government has handed the opposition all the ammunition it could possibly need on a silver platter.

The creation of a presidential commission with controversial powers has unsurprisingly made more than a few people question the government’s intentions.

Instead of its six members appearing as the caped conquerors of corruption as perhaps they imagined, the government has succeeded in giving opposition members the opportunity to play the victim in a radical role reversal. A journalist last night even light-heartedly suggested DRP and PA consider contacting the Maldivian Detainee Network as MDP activists had done under the previous government.

By creating the commission without any apparent legal consultation, on what appears to be a presidential whim, the government has further opened the door for the opposition to appropriate the language of democracy and invoke democratic ideals to elicit sympathy for their “plight”.

A DRP statement distributed at the press conference wrote that a reversal of the democratisation process was taking place as President Nasheed resorted to “unconstitutional and heavy-handed tactics to cling on to power and crush the popular opposition”. Worryingly, their words carry an inkling of truth.

The government has averted the spotlight from the previous regime’s misdeeds and onto its own. It has succeeded in obfuscating its indisputably lofty objective – reparations for embezzlement of state funds – by choosing a not so lofty manner in which to attain its goal.

But, the presidential commission is symptomatic of a far greater MDP malady – a utilitarian attitude towards members of the opposition, which allows party members to rationalise wrongdoing for the greater good: to recompense both for past injustices and to pave way for a democratic future.

Unfairly transferring an island chief before the parliamentary elections as a campaign strategy is justified in the MDP mind, if the island chief is notoriously corrupt.

But undemocratic means cannot serve democratic ends, just as antagonism will not lead to peace. Perhaps it is time to ask why the government does not have faith in the existing independent institutions, such as the police and the Anti-Corruption Commission, and how these institutions can be strengthened.

If the government wishes to settle past injustices unilaterally, a strategy in line with more conventional methods of transitional justice should to be devised so that democracy is not derailed before it is even allowed to take root.

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

Likes(1)Dislikes(0)

Tensions are fraught in the capital Male’ as voters head to the polling booths to cast their ballots today in the country’s first ever multi-party parliamentary election.

Campaigning ended yesterday at 6pm, but before the deadline, cavalcades of pick-up trucks and motorbikes used the remaining hours to whiz around the congested concrete capital, garlanded in party colours and blaring out Hindi music for their candidate of choice.

Rallies over the past month have become progressively more heated, as the two titans of Maldivian politics, the ruling Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) and the main opposition Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP), go head to head, each vying to win a majority in an election that will determine the legislative landscape of the next five years.

The outcome will create the country’s first democratically-elected and proportionally representative parliament, responsible for plugging the numerous gaps in the country’s legislation, and serving as a check and balance on the government.

Parliamentary majority

President Mohamed Nasheed’s fighting talk was more spirited than ever in his final campaign speech on Thursday night when he spoke with confidence of his party’s ability to win a landslide majority.

“When the results are announced, it will become clear we have won 50 seats,” he said. “We will have to use the power of those 50 seats humbly. We must make use of these seats for the benefit of the people.”

Nasheed said he voted for the first time last year when he ran for presidency; in previous years, he had been arrested ahead of any elections.

“As it turns out,” quipped the 41-year-old, “the only time I was allowed to vote, I won.”

Members of the MDP, which heads the coalition government, fear an opposition majority consisting of DRP and their allies, the People’s Alliance, could result in their political ambitions being blocked at every turn.

Moreover, whispers of an opposition majority passing a vote of no-confidence against the president have been rife.

Showdown

The election is the second showdown between the heads of both parties in less than a year. In October 2008, the country held its first-ever democratic presidential election, which saw Nasheed, backed by a coalition, snatch victory from the 30-year ruler, Maumoon Abdul Gayoom.

Although Gayoom was defeated in the second round of the election, he won the first round with 40.3 per cent of the vote against Nasheed’s 24.9 per cent. The former president continues to have a strong support base.

Speaking to Minivan News today, Mohamed Nasheed, parliamentary candidate and former information minister, said the elections were more of a battle between two personalities rather than “two competing ideologies”.

Although still a member of DRP, Nasheed echoed the belief held by many that neither party should win a majority in parliament.

“There’s a genuine palpable reason if you give the majority to MDP that you will be giving them too much power and compromise the scope of parliamentary independence,” he said.

“In the same way, there is a palpable risk that if DRP wins a majority they may make government difficult and even at some point try and bring it down.”

Corruption allegations

Looming over the historic elections are widespread allegations of bribery and the abuse of power by political appointees. Reports of foul play from NGOs and the country’s various independent institutions have mounted over the past month.

The Elections Commission (EC) has received close to 800 complaints, out of which, 65 were related to allegations of bribery and intimidation.

The Human Rights Commission Maldives and Attorney General Fathimath Dhiyana Saeed have echoed similar concerns.

In Male’ today, most of the voters who spoke to Minivan News said they too had heard rumours of bribery.

49-year-old Adheel Jaleel, who was up early to vote for his party, said that while he had heard rumours, nobody had “been caught red-handed.”

At Arabiyya School, where voting was in full swing by midday, Elections Monitor Mohamed Ibrahim said relatives of one of the candidates had turned up to the polling station to strong-arm voters in the queue.

“I told them you cannot force people. Give them the freedom to vote for who they want,” he said.

NGO Transparency Maldives is the latest organisation to voice concern.

A statement issued yesterday highlighted three main problem areas: allegations of bribery (vote buying and vote selling), allegations of abuse of power (threats, intimidation, hindering campaigns), and compromising voter secrecy.

The EC has estimated at least 3,000 people voting locally and abroad could have their right to a secret vote compromised in situations where a single voter uses a ballot box outside his or her constituency.

Voter turnout

Although a low voter turnout was expected by many today, in Male’ certainly, most of those strolling around bore purple-stained index fingers.

Of those interviewed by Minivan News, only one, Abdullah Moosa, a vendor at Male’s vegetable market, said he would not be voting today.

“The candidates are contesting for their Rf66,000,” said the 70-year-old, shrugging his shoulders dismissively. “The elections won’t be independent as the candidates will be deceiving the public.”

Moosa, who voted for Gayoom in the presidential elections, described the experience as “the worst” of his life.

“Parliamentarians in the Maldives are backbiting. They don’t use their time to make the laws,” he said.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Minivan News brings you the final instalment in a three-part interview with Foreign Minister Dr Ahmed Shaheed. A founding member of the Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) and later, the New Maldives, a faction within the party which aimed to make the Maldives a liberal democracy, Shaheed has served under two successive administrations. In the 2008 presidential elections, he was independent candidate Dr Hassan Saeed’s running mate. In January, the pair formed the Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP), which is part of the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) led coalition government.

Why don’t you tell me a little bit about this award that you have recently won?

I’m very happy to be named Muslim Democrat of the year. They’ve been looking at the work that I do. I’ve been very much in the limelight since the tsunami. I was the government spokesperson, trying to defend a reform agenda but I was putting it together as well. I am recognised as very strong on human rights and advocacy.

We had a government here which was very adamant on cultural human rights. I changed that round to put it into the international perspective, but in the end I also left them because you can take a horse to water but you can’t make it drink.

The work I did in the previous government trying to move towards democracy and the work I did after being in the government, to pressure them and to build a coalition and currently in trying to sustain the government.

I sent a paper to the conference. The paper looked at what we were doing in the Maldives to bring democracy, but in particular how the former government had used Islam as a tool for control and how we thought we could dismantle that and make Islam a positive force for democracy in the Maldives.

How did the previous government use Islam as a tool?

The point is before the last regime came to power, we had a very relaxed regime towards Islam with almost Sufi traditions being practised here. But I think they almost Salafised it. Gayoom is perhaps a moderate in many ways but his language is that of a Salafist. Islamic brotherhood in Egypt is very Salafist in many ways.

So they used Islam for everything in the country, they used something Islamic as the benchmark to look at. So Islam came into every aspect in modern politics, it came into every ritual, in every political event and anyone who opposed the regime faced the danger of being labelled un-Islamic.

What was the impact on this?

The negative effects of this are it obfuscates rational thinking. Islam strikes a very emotive chord in people here and it doesn’t necessarily bring out the most rational thinking. It also presents in some ways an official version of Islam sanctioned by the government. What I mean to say is that Islam is in any case very diverse.

So you have a problem with an official version of Islam sanctioned by the government?

Imposed.

In an ideal world how should it be?

Well Islam has a lot to do with the individual and God. We don’t have to have an intercessory in between the two. But when you have secular authorities pronouncing on these issues, they mix the two. And one very unfortunate development is that when they drafted the last constitution in 1977, the Islamists argued that in a Muslim country you can’t have a separation of powers between the judiciary and the executive.

So the president assumed powers as the head of judiciary as something Islamic, which is not the case. Then again when it came to denying representation, they used Islam as the justification. They misused Islam for political gain, the primary one being the role of the president as head of the judiciary.

For now I’m very happy to be in a 100 per cent Muslim country having achieved homegrown democracy. It’s not something that was imposed on us. The movement for democracy grew in the country…we’re still trying to complete the revolution here.

(…)

We don’t think Islam and democracy are incompatible. We are also showing that an Islamic country can be pro-West. In fact, an argument you don’t hear from us but they quote throughout the Islamic world is that the West is to blame for a lot of things. Now you don’t hear that argument from us. We don’t blame the West for anything.

But we think there are things the Islamic world ought to be doing and can do to build bridges with Western countries. The point is we as Muslim countries must recognise certain things, like international law for example and the fact that we’re living in a globalised society and that there is the United Nations.

These basic things we recognise, the Islamists don’t do that. We are a country that recognises the universality of human rights. We recognise that Islam can co-exist with other values.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Minivan News brings you the first in a three-part interview with Foreign Minister Dr Ahmed Shaheed. A founding member of the Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) and later, the New Maldives, a faction within the party which aimed to make the Maldives a liberal democracy, Shaheed has served under two successive administrations. In the 2008 presidential elections, he was independent candidate Dr Hassan Saeed’s running mate. In January, the pair formed the Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP), which is part of the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) led coalition government.

Can you tell me a bit about your party, the DQP?

Our main goal was to usher in democracy to the Maldives and that still remains our main goal; to support the government, to support President Nasheed in ensuring that his government succeeds and to build and sustain democracy here.

But we were formed after the election period and we were born almost on the threshold of the next election so we don’t get caught in the cross-fire between the DRP and the MDP. We are a bit concerned about the resurgence of the DRP.

What kind of resurgence?

Four months back, we thought that there would be a parliamentary majority for the MDP in the elections but now it looks like that might not be the case and DRP is poised to take a fairly big chunk.

Do you think they will get a majority?

I hope not.

What would be the danger if they did?

Well DRP’s undemocratic. DRP doesn’t believe in democracy.

But you worked in the former government?

I was a founder member of DRP. I wrote the initial manifesto, which was torn up by some of my political rivals. So yes we were trying to build within DRP a pro-democratic coalition or force, the New Maldives, but the New Maldives had to leave the DRP and rump DRP doesn’t believe in democracy.

They must be held to account for their legacy of 30 years of misrule, they must be held to account for failing to democratise in time.

But you were in the government so doesn’t that include you?

Yes accountability doesn’t exclude anybody. I mean it. But I’m not saying everyone should be dragged to the courts and into prison. I’m talking about the rule of law here. We have to know what happened. The danger here is democracy is still a very new idea in this country.

For 30 years we have been brainwashed into Salafist thinking. And people don’t necessarily understand what various democratic doctrines mean. The separation of powers and rule of law are things not necessarily understood, even appreciated. I’m still not convinced by and large people will prefer democracy over autocracy if economic failure becomes part of democracy.

People still want a better life, but not necessarily a better way of getting to a better life. You choose democracy regardless of the government it produces but I don’t think we’ve got there yet. We’ve chosen democracy as a means to better governance. Not necessarily as an end in itself. So in that situation, the danger is, if an old guard comes back, they come back with the message that democracy has failed.

The J-Curve by Ian Bremmer speaks of countries which are autocratic and undemocratic and when they democratise, they go through a J-Curve and you go through a little dip. That dip is when things are unstable and things are a bit chaotic but then you eventually improve to become more stable.

So we are in an unstable period. The danger is in some countries, they move back towards the left and go straight back to autocracy. So if DRP comes back in we’ll go back towards the left of the curve. And we can forget about democracy for the next 30 years because they will tell us that democracy produced a government that didn’t work.

So my concern is regardless of who wins seats in parliament we must ensure that the people who get there respect democracy, respect the constitution, respect the rule of law, respect the people. We’ve heard signals, echoes, voices from the DRP rubbishing democracy.

They don’t dare make a big noise about it, but occasionally you hear these voices. When I was working with them, human rights were an expediency for them. It wasn’t an end in itself. It was a means to win accolades.

And left to their own devices, given a majority, they will want to retrench some of the democratic agenda, some of the human rights agenda as well. It’s like putting the Bolsheviks back into the Kremlin. No matter how bad it was post-Gorbachev, you wouldn’t put the Bolsheviks back in.

What are your thoughts on the current president?

First of all, I wish the president hadn’t said that [nulafaa – ruthless]. It wasn’t the most responsible thing to have said. But be that as it may, one reason everybody is so upset about that remark is not so much to do with Anni [President Mohamed Nasheed], it’s to do with the past president.

For 30 years we had government impunity, for 30 years, we had MPs locked up and opposition MPs have seen how nasty the government gets to the opponents so the problem for many of us is that President Nasheed’s comments echo those bad experiences. So the reason why it hit such a raw nerve is that for 30 years people have been locked up and had a very very torrid and tough time.

So that statement is insensitive to those experiences. I don’t think anybody today believes that with the separation of powers, with a hawkish press, that any president can act with impunity. Well the comments did seem rather Machiavellian to me but I find Nasheed’s bark is worse than his bite.

The first term of Gayoom when he wanted to be re-elected as president, he had to lock up several MPs and judges. And that’s how he won his re-election. And throughout his tenure, regularly MPs were locked up for dissent.

(…)

The thing about these comments the president made, his office could have responded better on this one. His office could have come up with a much clearer explanation of what he was saying and what he meant by that. I mean there’s a world of difference between a tyrant saying you’ll see how bad I can get to a democrat saying you’ll see how tough I could get.

It was the president talking tough trying to get people to vote for his party. I’m not defending him, I’m saying his office could have done a better job defending his remarks because he was speaking very candidly but not necessarily in a menacing manner. The audience reaction was a laugh. So it was a joke gone bad.

How much of what Gayoom was doing was known to the public at the time? Were people ignorant about what was going on or were they just too scared to speak out?

I think they were too scared to speak out. People didn’t have the means of expressing dissent.

Did people on the islands outside of Male’ know? How much information reached them?

With Gayoom, there was good and there was bad. There was Islamic and there was un-Islamic. And he painted things in a very black and white manner, so if you were in prison, you were a drug addict, an alcoholic and all that. It was never political. They were criminals, not political opponents.

In that sense, the picture people were told was that they had committed crimes. There was no alternative view and information wasn’t there. It still isn’t there. We’re still in a very fragile situation. I’m not happy with where we are. We’re in danger of sliding back either into a Gayoom-style autocracy by Gayoom himself or perhaps by some other person. We’re not out of the woods yet. That will happen when parliament is more accountable.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)