United States’ Assistant Secretary of State Robert Blake has encouraged the coalition of “former opposition” political parties affiliated with the new government to “work with all parties to reform and improve the capacity of the judiciary, the police and the election commission to ensure the election can be held in an orderly and peaceful manner.”
Large crowds gathered at MDP rally
Meeting the press this afternoon in the National Art Gallery, Blake said that “a number of good ideas” were being explored to “try and bring former President Mohamed Nasheed’s Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) into the national unity government.”
Blake’s suggestion follows that of new President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan, who said on Saturday morning that he hoped some cabinet posts would be taken by the MDP: “I hope MDP will be part of my cabinet, and I will keep posts vacant for them.”
Nasheed’s supporters have criticised the legitimacy of Dr Waheed’s government and have refused to participate in his proposed ‘national unity’ government.
Challenged by a foreign journalist as to the legality of the transition, Blake said that US commitment was to the new government of the Maldives.
““The United states remains committed to working with all Maldivian people to ensure democratic and prosperous future for this important friend of the United States,” Blake said.
However he added said that there were “some questions regarding the transfer of power” and suggested that some sort of independent Maldivian commission be formed to investigate the issue, before arriving at conclusions.
As per the constitution, the Vice President is next in line for the presidency and the speaker of the parliament “has already said that the transfer of the power was constitutional.”
“Some people say it was a coup, some people say it was a peaceful and constitutional transfer of. power. That not for the US to decide, that is for Maldivians,” Blake said.
He did express concern over the “anti-semetic commentary” and strongly condemned it, and also praised Nasheed’s government “for working to improve [the country’s] relationship with Israel and show themselves as a modern and progressive government.”
Nasheed and his party supporters gathered in their thousands at the Artificial Beach in Male’, where they were shown a chronology of videos leading up the change of government. Crowd control police or military were nowhere to be seen, and the crowd eventually dispersed peacefully.
When retired Colonel Mohamed Nazim addressed the press for the first time following his appointment as the country’s new Defence Minister, he strongly asserted that there was no pressure from the armed forces on President Nasheed to resign.
He further claimed in front of journalists that the armed personnel gave no indication either way even when the President had asked them for advice.
However, in a video broadcast afterwards on RaajjeTV, the retired colonel is seen addressing the mutinous security forces at the Republican square on the morning of seventh February. In the video, he is seen coming out of the MNDF barracks, and telling the assembled forces over a loud speaker that he has conveyed their demands, which included the President’s ‘unconditional resignation’.
Clearly, the new Defense Minister needs to rethink this statement, and be more forthcoming about the day’s events.
Furthermore, why the new Commissioner Abdulla Riyaz – who had been sacked earlier – was seen carrying the President’s resignation letter is another question worth asking.
How Nazim and the Abdulla Riyaz, both civilians at the time, were allowed to freely walk into the MNDF barracks and closely accompany the President remains a mystery.
What is clear is that when the President is forced by the armed forces to resign under the threat of violence, held in military detention, brutally beaten up on the streets along with his supporters by the police, has an arrest warrant against him within a day of his resignation, and all the appointments made by his successor are known allies and associates of the former dictatorship that have been hostile to his presidency, then it is time to acknowledge the incident for what it is – a coup d’etat.
A puppet government
To be absolutely clear, Dr Waheed is a admirable man. He is an articulate and accomplished person, with a ton of experience and is eminently worthy of handling the responsibilities of the Presidency – arguably much more so than any candidate the main opposition parties has to offer.
However, the circumstances leading to his acquisition of power are vague, and the little that is known is corrosive to the country’s democratic ambitions.
Noteworthy among them is that the main opposition parties had publicly called upon the armed forces and the police to plead allegiance to the Vice President a week before the police mutiny even happened.
In a democracy, the transfer of power has to absolutely remain the sole prerogative of the people, exercised through the ballot box. This is a sacred writ of democracy that cannot – and should not – ever change.
A few hundred policemen should not be able to forcibly execute a regime change.
There is an ongoing effort by the opposition parties to portray the coup d’etat as a ‘popular’ uprising. But thankfully, it is trivial to discredit this assertion.
While there were 20 days of sustained protests by several opposition parties in the days leading up to the coup d’etat, the sparse attendance at these rallies – considering the sheer number of political parties behind it – proves that it wasn’t representative of the general public will.
Furthermore, Dr Waheed’s appointment brings with it greater portents.
Dr Waheed has little political influence or grassroots support to implement any independent decision. His fledgling political party hasn’t a single elected member in either the Parliament or a local council.
He is, thus, in a poor position to enforce or carry out the mandate of the people. Without the backing of the MDP, it is likely that the only policies he can realistically achieve are opposition demands that, again, have no electoral mandate.
“Rule of law”
Dr Waheed has also failed to strongly condemn the excessive police brutality against civilians on February 8, the day President Nasheed was released.
Despite having repeatedly vowed to uphold the ‘rule of law’, people were beaten unconscious, the ousted President was roughed up, and at least one senior member of Parliament was beaten mercilessly by the police under his watch.
His failure to reassure the people might have very well contributed to the arson and violence in the southern atolls, as supporters of President Nasheed torched police buildings and courts in response to the heavy-handed police crackdown.
The silence of the new President was only matched by the apalling insensitivity of the newly appointed Commissioner of Police who, when asked to respond to the excessive use of force by the police, insisted that the police always used ‘minimum force’ – and that he would leave it to the Police Integrity Commission (PIC) and the Human Rights Commission HRCM) to judge if they had stepped out of line.
On the other hand, the armed forces forcibly took control the Maldives National Broadcasting Corporation State media, renamed the station to ‘TVM’, as it was known during the Gayoom dictatorship.
The station is now a police propaganda outlet, and refuses to cover massive MDP rallies around the country, or the police brutality that has attracted condemnation from Amnesty International and other bodies:
A photo circulating on Facebook apparently showing defected police and MNDF celebrating in the courtyard of the state broadcaster, after taking it over on Tuesday.
Unity government
Dr Waheed has also said that he’s looking forward to forming a “unity government” and find common ground.
However, his appointment of Dr Mohamed Jameel as his new Home Minister puts a dark cloud over the sincerity of this effort.
By all measures, Jameel is a hawk. He led a strong, high rhetoric Islamist charge against the government when he was in opposition. His responses during his initial press conference were politically charged and combative, instead of the conciliatory tone Dr Waheed promised his government would have.
Jameel has vowed to raise terrorism charges against “those involved” – including President Nasheed. To his credit, Dr Waheed has called the comments “unwelcome”. However, if he is sincere about building peace, perhaps he needs to rethink his cabinet appointments.
The string of appointments of Gayoom regime loyalists and apologists to the cabinet and as heads of armed forces does nothing to quell the charges of political conspiracy.
When the legitimacy of the government is in doubt, and its willingness and capacity to deliver on the people’s electoral verdict is in doubt, and when these factors have created an atmosphere of extreme volatility, then the solution seems to be rather obvious.
An immediate election would restore the mandate of the people, and grant legitimacy and authority to an elected party, which would bring back some much needed order.
However, key foreign governments like India and the United States have failed to advocate this position, choosing instead to recognise the legitimacy of the newly installed government, backed by Gayoom regime forces, tainted business interests, and Islamists.
This decision has the potential to permanently reverse the democratic gains made by the country since the democratic uprising.
Dr Waheed himself argues that the political climate of the country is not conducive to elections – whatever that means.
Perhaps more likely is the contrary view that the conditions in the country are not suitable for the present government to continue, nor is it advisable for another – much larger – reason.
Setting a precedent
Other countries in the region, such as Pakistan, have experimented with letting the armed forces dictate the rulers of the country. And in the bargain, Pakistan has become a failed democracy mired in chaos and conflict.
It is therefore tragic that the Maldives is all set to follow in Pakistan’s footsteps, without even having experienced two election cycles.
Could future political parties in the Maldives come to power simply by winning influence in the police and armed forces? Will the demands of a few hundred uniformed personnel strip 300,000 people of their democratic verdict?
If the currently installed government is granted legitimacy, what would stop the country’s defense forces from pointing a gun at future elected governments?
The Maldivian constitution says that the ultimate power rests with the people, and the people alone. This is the central tenet of the constitution – the one line that decides that we the people are in charge of our democracy.
However, if this coup – this travesty – is allowed to take place unopposed, then we would have set the unwelcome precedent that a few men with guns can override the mandate of the people.
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]
Inside the MNDF base during Nasheed’s last moments in power:
Translation (provided by the MDP, Minivan News is currently verifying accuracy).
President Nasheed: Nikumey, nikumey, nikumey {Go out, Go out, Go out}
00:10 – 00:13 Nasheed: Anekahves…..alhe mee {Not again……..then this}
00:14-00:17 Nasheed: Nikan Kameh kobbala, Nikah kameh kohbala ,kaleymen {Please do something, please do something, you guys}
00:29-00:42 Nasheed: Nilaam, Nilaam ………gossa nikumey…. mulhi rajje halaaku kuranee kaleymen thibegen….Nukunashey. {Nilaam,Nilaam…..get out there…the whole of Maldives is being destroyed, by your inaction}
Unkown: Nukumeveytha? {Is it possible to get out?}
01:00-1:03 Unknown: Mariyamen rulhi aiss gen Male thalhaalanee. {Mariya and them has gotten angry and destroying Male.’}
The Maldives used to be a paradise for tourists but not its inhabitants. Honeymooners went there to explore each other, not the country,” writes Moorcraft for South Africa’s Business Day.
“Until 2008, it was the longest-lasting dictatorship in Asia. Then a diminutive but charismatic human rights activist, Mohamed Nasheed (known to everyone as “Anni”), defeated the old dictator, Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, in the country’s first free elections.
Just 41, the young president was compared with Nelson Mandela and Barack Obama, though he told me of his respect for Mahatma Gandhi. I got to know “Anni” when he was an opposition leader who had been imprisoned 23 times, sometimes in solitary confinement, and tortured by the Gayoom regime. I made TV documentaries about him and his beautiful country, an archipelago of more than 1200 islands.
“Anni” had promised he would give me the first TV interview on his first day in power. He kept his word as we chatted in his office, with furious ambassadors from major states pacing outside his office. The islands are strategically placed amid major (oil) shipping lanes, of interest particularly to India and China.
“Not many Islamic countries have had free and fair elections to form a multiparty democracy,” he said. Despite his own mistreatment, he preached forgiveness to the old regime, because it was an Islamic principle and practical politics. He said Mandela and SA’s truth and reconciliation process were his inspiration.
The previous regime had emptied the treasury. “Our finances are in bad shape,” he admitted. “We can’t consolidate democracy if we can’t pay wages.”
He was always a man of his word, but he faced a huge task of rebuilding his country. Nasheed became a green icon worldwide, not least because he held one of his cabinet meetings underwater, with his ministers wearing scuba gear, to publicise the dangers of global warming. He talked to me about eventually relocating his 350000 citizens to Sri Lanka, India or even Australia — as his country sank beneath the waves.
His victory was a beacon to the Islamic world. Free elections and multiparty democracy without a drop of blood spilled and not a single western soldier present.
So why was such an inspirational leader deposed this week? His supporters claim he was ousted in a military and police coup-cum-mutiny, although it was not that simple. The main issue was that he won the presidency but his reformist party was in a minority in parliament — Gayoom’s supporters were in the majority. Cohabitation was difficult. Also the judiciary, largely composed of ill-educated placemen appointed by the old dictator, was often at loggerheads with the new president. Tensions came to a head in the past month, when the army detained a senior criminal court judge.
Economic factors were also in play — like Obama, the new president created a crisis of expectations. Job prospects, especially for the young, did not suddenly improve when he took over. Even some reformers felt that the human rights activist of old was being heavy-handed with his political (or family/clan) opponents. And, crucially, he was attacked by the Islamist right wing, which argued he was too secular. The Islamist parties had never achieved much in electoral terms, but they were influential — as the increasing use of the veil indicated. And even foreign intelligence agencies fretted about Jihadist growth in some of the outlying islands.
Street protests in the past few weeks were met by police crackdowns, and then old-regime elements of the police joined the protesters. Nasheed explained that his only recourse to this was to call in the small and divided army, or resign. It was a bloodless coup.
Nasheed may decide to contest the forthcoming election or not, but the forces of the old regime led by Gayoom, an Egyptian-trained cleric, in alliance with the fundamentalists, could defeat the more secular reformists.
The deposed leader is, in effect, under house arrest, enjoying the “protection” of the army.
Nasheed became a world icon not least for the environmentalists. A stirring movie about his achievements, The Island President, has recently won awards at the Sundance and Toronto film festivals. Perhaps the visionary leader became more popular abroad than at home; a sad comment on a man who promised so much.
As in SA, lesser men are likely to replace the icon.
Moorcraft is a visiting professor at Cardiff University’s School of Journalism, Media and Cultural Studies.
(0)Dislikes
(0)