Deputy Leader of the Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP), Dr Abdulla Mausoom, has dismissed reports in local media that the party’s alliance with the Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP) is being reconsidered.
“I think the media report is the opinion of one person,” said Mausoom.
Mausoom was responding to quotes from the Secretary General of the DQP, Abdulla Ameen, suggesting that a failure to strengthen the party’s ties since its initial agreement in February 2011 had made the coalition redundant.
“The coalition was formed to make the then government more accountable to its people. The other reason was to create an environment for the opposition parties to work together,” Ameen told Haveeru.
“But former President Mohamed Nasheed’s government fell in a way that we had not even expected. Now we have to function in a different manner altogether. So the circumstance under which the coalition was formed has changed drastically,” he added.
Ameen went on to say that the issue was one which would have to be discussed by the parties’ respective councils – he was not responding to calls at the time of press.
Mausoom, however, was keen to point out that the nature of the agreement with the DQP was more akin to an election strategy than a traditional coalition.
“The word coalition is not very meaningful in the Maldives,” he said. “Nasheed used a coalition to get into power and that fell apart.”
“We has an understanding – rather than a coalition per se – that Qaumee party would support DRP’s presidential candidate in 2013,” he explained.
Mausoom went on to suggest that legislation would be needed to enforce coalition arrangements before they could become a serious feature of Maldivian politics.
This view reiterates a point previously expressed by the DRP, who view the current alliance of political parties in support of President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan as a national-unity government rather than a coalition.
A no-confidence motion, seemingly backed by politicians from within the pro-government group, against President Waheed is currently awaiting inclusion on the Majlis agenda.
Ameen went on to argue that the two parties differ significantly on major issues, in particular the development of Ibrahim Nasir International Airport (INIA) by the Indian company GMR.
Both parties appear to oppose the deal, though DRP leaders have been more vocal about the need to take the issue through the courts and to protect investor confidence in the country.
The DQP, however, released inflammatory literature likening the airport’s development to colonisation. The party’s leader, Dr Hassan Saeed, has this week released a book arguing for the unilateral invalidation of the agreement.
Hassan, also Special Advisor to President Waheed, compared cancelling the deal to “taking bitter medicine to cure a disease” or “amputating an organ to stop the spread of cancer.”
The DRP has stated its intention to provide voters with an alternative to the divisive and personality based politics offered by the other parties.
Vilufushi MP Riyaz Rasheed – the DQP’s sole MP -in June threatened to walk away from the party should it continue to its ties with the DRP, after the abstention of a DRP MP allowed the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) to pass a motion to debate police brutality in the Majlis.
The firebrand MP was reported by one local media outlet to have resigned from the party last week before telling another that the supposed resignation letter was simply one outlining current issues of concern he had about the party.
The DRP currently holds 13 seats in the Majlis and has 26,798 registered members, making it the second largest party in the country. The DQP has one seat and 2,199 members.
4 thoughts on ““The word coalition is not meaningful in the Maldives”: DRP Deputy Leader”
Its still the same team supported to have a presidential in Maldives,and talking of collision."PARLIAMENTARY" Maldives constitution allows only presidential not a Parliamentary out side parliament.
The party's must follow what they voted. Its only collision made advice by me to end 30 years regime
Of course it is not meaningful. Most politicians in the Maldives are godless fools or munafiqs, sigh, how can we trust them to lead responsibly.....
they are all slaves to this Democrazy..Oops, I meant, DEMONCRAZY hyuk hyuk....only few are genuine red blooded Maldivians who want to live under the rule of Allah (swt) which is only way to peace and prosperity.
Demoncrazy is all about trash talk and money..and dominant currency of today is the dollar...if you look at the one dollar sign you will see the sign of the Roshctild zionists. We need a better system than this satanic demoncrazy....but these godless fools will keep trying to fight the Sharia (too bad they'll never win LOL!).
REPENT BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE!
ONLY TIME AND DEATH WILL SHOW US THE TRUTH!
@Shimy on Thu, 25th Oct 2012 12:56 AM
I know I am asking for too much. But what the heck.
1. You are acknowledging that most politicians are godless fools. You are forgetting they are appointed by us, representing their constituents. If the politicians now come and say, some idea which you don't like, does not mean they are wrong. What is means is that MOST constituents wants that idea. So, by representation, according to you, most maldivians are godless fools.
2. If most maldivians want to be godless, why they repent just to please you?
@Shimy and @Joking aside:
You have both noted an important issue facing us today.
For better or for worse, we have accepted a democratic form of governance and popular representation through which we elect our leadership.
If we disagree with the statements made by our elected leaders then we must really raise questions about the electoral process.
I believe that the problem lies in our lack of self-awareness. We often don't know what we are voting for when we vote.
Some of us vote on party lines when we don't know what the party we support stands for. Some of us vote just because we like the presidential candidate promoted by a particular party. Some of us vote for money.
Our politics is not yet based on ideologies and issues. My hope is that in the next round of elections, a section of the public realize the value and worth of elections. That we should elect:
- Leaders who can truly represent our constituencies and the issues facing us.
- Leaders who support the ideologies we support.
- Leaders who take a stand on issues that we would like them to take.
- Leaders whose values we share.
My observation is that the MDP is a liberal leftist association which might appeal in the future to a broad section of the working class.
PPM appears to be a more conservative right-of-center party with growing backing from business interests.
DRP on the other hand has firmly fixed itself in the center, appealing to the upper-middle-class while trying to appeal to the Civil Service and sections of the working class such as teachers and school administrations.
The unique feature of our politics is that the nature of our State requires all parties to support welfare-based policies, state enterprises and subsidized services.
Perhaps in the future, once the dust settles, things might become clearer to the average voter and we might be able to see a clearer picture with regards to the political landscape.
Comments are closed.