Tag: coup

“Not easy to flush the remnants of a dictatorship,” Nasheed tells Daily Show

Former President Mohamed Nasheed has appeared on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart, a popular US current affairs program that averages two million viewers a night.

As with many of his appearances to promote the Island President, the topic quickly turned to Nasheed’s resignation “under duress” on Feburary 7.

“It is easy to beat a dictator in an election, but it is not easy to flush the remnants of a dictatorship, they come back, and with a vengeance,” Nasheed told Stewart.

“Since the coup the vast majority of people have been out on the streets in support [of us]. We are not seeing many supporters in favour of Gayoom, but he has the police, the military the judiciary and the institutions,” Nasheed said.

“We are asking the US government to impress upon the Maldives government the need to have elections as quickly as possible,” he explained.

“I can only assume our government is doing everything it possibly can to help, because that’s how we roll,” Stewart replied, sardonically.

“I think they got the wrong end of the stick to start with. I hope they are now understanding the ground reality. I met your officials and was encouraged, but they seem to have to ask everyone around the Maldives before they can say anything,” Nasheed observed.

This meant India, suggested Stewart.

“India is very large and influential – but I wonder if it is an intelligent thing to outsource your foreign policy,” Nasheed suggested.

Watch the show

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Q&A: Police Commissioner Abdulla Riyaz

Police Commissioner Abdulla Riyaz was appointed following the change of government on February 7 in what former President Mohamed Nasheed and the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) contends was a police and military-led coup d’état. Riyaz had previously served as Assistant Commissioner but was dismissed by Nasheed’s government in 2009.

Daniel Bosley: Why did you decide to promote so many officers all at once?

Abdulla Riyaz: Well, most of the promotions have been overdue for a long time, and when I took office I looked at the reasons and discussed with the executives, as I have mentioned, that we have been working to restructure the whole organisation which I have done. It has been selected to under directorates which would be able to form some departments, and in the departments there will be several units which will cover the whole country. We have a constitutional responsibility as well as from the police act. We have a lot of responsibilities to protect and serve the people, to keep the peace in society, and to maintain law and order so I thought it is necessary that these arrangements should be made and that is what we have done. All the promotions that we have awarded are based on the promotion regulations.

DB: Is this re-organisation linked to your aim of de-politicising the police force?

AR: Well, there is no politicisation in the police any more. But for the last three years, this organisation has been heavily influenced by politicians. I’m sure all professional journalists, if they have done this analysis or investigation, would find that. Since I have taken office I have looked at some of the issues and have found that some of the promotions have been given just because of political influence. There have been some officers transferred from one police station to others just for the political reasons, so I am here to make sure that I am serving this organisation, also the people of the Maldives, without bias. Today I can say very proudly say that we are working without any political influence, from the President or from the Minister. It is totally, one hundred percent, independently operational now.

DB: So, there have been demotions as well?

AR: No, there hasn’t been any demotion – definitely not so far, and I have no intention to either. If there has been any misconduct, any unlawful act done by any police officer; if they have been found guilty by law or by disciplinary boards, through the due process. If that kind of advise or that kind of verdict comes, I will definitely take those actions [to demote]. I will never hesitate to demote a police officer if they are found guilty of any unlawful act.

DB: There has been a lot of talk about reform and enhanced training; what kind of things do you have in mind for the future?

AR: For the training, our main challenge at the moment is to keep the peace in our society. To do that we have prioritised our operational practice. One of these is drug trafficking; the second is violent crimes, organised crime, counter terrorism, and road discipline – so these are the five main operational priorities that we are going to focus on this year. Most of our resources will go to make sure that we get results in these areas and our training will be focused on that.

We said that we would also want to make sure that we can convince the public and increase the public perception about the trust and confidence in the police, we need to improve that. That is one of the main areas we need. For that we need to assure that the police is not biased, that the police are professional, that we deal without any gender bias or without any political differences of that nature.

So, I am very confident that we will be in a better position to get this [confidence] back. I am pretty confident that we can achieve public trust and confidence. It’s just a couple of months that I have taken office and so far the feedback that I have been getting is very positive, and of course I am open for any comments or suggestions from the members of the public;  from which we will definitely make changes to our programmes or our projects.

So mostly, all our focus will be on that. We are doing a lot of training on professional development; investigations to make sure that, rather than on the number of cases we investigate, we concentrate more on making sure that we have more successful prosecutions. Because we have seen in the past a lot of cases that have not been proven at the court of law. That is a big concern for me, so I am working very closely with the Prosecutor General as well to make sure that our officers are trained professionally to investigate, to interview, trained to collect evidence, analyse it, submit reports and present it at the court of law, and make sure we have successful prosecutions. That is the other main area.

We are also very much concerned about our officers safety – I condemn the acts of some of the people who have attacked the police officers. We have not lost any lives but there have been several serious injuries and we had to take a couple of our officers abroad for treatment. A lot of their assets have been targeted and vandalised on the other atolls, on the islands, while they were serving the public. So, one of our concerns is also to improve their welfare and working conditions, plus their working shifts. We know that some of the officers have been working very hard, very long hours and that we need to improve that. For that reason we needed more officers to be recruited into the organisation, which we are going to do this year. We have been approved for 200 more police officers to be included, so they will be initiated this year. We are also seeing that due to the long shifts and fatigue, that we need to make sure that our officers are dealing with the public professionally.

We are getting some of the reports of complaints about police officers’ dealings and because of that reason we have restructure our professional standards. They are responsible to deal with complaints against the police, also to do counselling for officers, and that kind of program has already been initiated. The counselling program will involve almost all of the police officers in the service. It is professional counselling to make sure that they don’t have worries with their families or whatever issues that they have, if that comes back to us, then our organisation will know what are the things we need to improve. These are the main areas we need to improve.

DB: We have already touched slightly on internal disciplinary procedures – have these been changed in any way?

AR: The internal disciplinary procedures all these years has been that, if there is any complaint against the police, the case has to register at the Professional Standards Directorate (PSD). It had to be registered, somebody had to complain. But I have changed it to act that if we hear information from any sources – it is more pro-active. Then the PSD has the responsibility to do an inquiry, and they will also work very closely with the Human Rights Commission Maldives (HRCM), with the Police Integrity Commission (PIC), with Amnesty International (AI) or other organisations who are dealing with these kinds of areas, so they are very pro-active – more proactive than ever before.

Once they investigate the cases, if they feel that there has been a criminal case, then it will be dealt with by the criminal investigation department, whereas if it is a disciplinary issue, it will go through the disciplinary board. We have a disciplinary board of five or seven members; we have changed the board now. Some commissioned officers have been complained about so it has been restructured so very senior officers will be sitting to deal with the commissioned officers and so that is the procedure. If the board decides that action should be taken then I will definitely endorse it. That is how it is done in terms of disciplinary issues and if there is a call for dismissal then I have to write to the Minister for his authorisation. If it is a criminal case it will go to the prosecutor general who will deal with it in accordance with the law.

DB: Could you comment on recent complaints by Amnesty International regarding the treatment of female detainees?

AR: It’s very unfortunate that it has come up. Normally, these kinds of organisations, before they issue a release, they will ask for our comments. They have never done that; I am very disappointed about that. We have given Amnesty full access every time they asked; it is even now open. We have a very open policy. To be honest with you, even during a demonstration, every time we are working on the street, HRCM or PIC is on the ground to watch us. Normally, if we apprehend someone, before we even know their names, HRCM would have registered it by themselves. So it is in the normal cases.

We are giving them access to our reception, we are giving access to Dhoonidhoo island. In fact, they don’t have to ask to visit, they could just go by boat and say that ‘we are here’, they could make surprise visits – feel free, it’s open. Even Amnesty or Open Society or whatever – please come and visit us and see if there is anything we have been doing systematically to harass or do anything. On that matter, I am very disappointed that Amnesty has released that statement without contacting us for our comments. I don’t see that there has been any investigations done, none of our officers was questioned, interviewed – neither by them nor by the police integrity commission, nor by the human rights commission. I don’t think that’s fair and that’s the reason we had to respond to it [with a statement].

DB: Regarding the investigation of the events of February 7 and 8, what are the roles of the HRCM and the CNI?

AR: I can’t talk on behalf of CNI, obviously, but I think they are investigating an overview, that’s how I feel. They are not doing a criminal investigation. I was interviewed as well and I was told it wasn’t a criminal investigation. So I think we will have to wait for the outcome. I think it’s a very positive move by the government, to have an independent commission to make sure how events took place. The HRCM is perhaps doing a part of the investigation, or the PIC is doing some as well, so let’s wait and see how it comes.

DB: You have already mentioned the public sentiment problems, is there anything you would like to add on that subject?

AR: I can understand that this is not the best time for police, there have been a lot of things [that have happened]. What I would like to convey to the members of the public is that the police institution will remain as an institution. People come and go, the leadership comes and goes; the institution will remain. Even for the politicians or the members of the public who are not comfortable with us, I would want to convince, or give the message, that the institution will remain, so we will have to give that respect to the institution. If there is an issue with the commissioner or if there is an issue with any of the officers, I think we will have to follow the processes; if there is any complaint, deal with it. All these institutions that have to be there within our constitution are already there in place, it’s functioning.

I think that PIC, HRCM, Anti Corruption Commission (ACC) are very independently doing the investigations and we should allow that to happen rather than blaming the institutions for no reason. I don’t think that is going to be healthy, either for them, nor for society, nor for us. I think we have to strengthen the institutions, we have to advocate even the members of the public and the politicians as well. The future political leaders must also make sure we give the space to strengthen the institutions.

I think that this is a great opportunity for the Maldives. Why it is great is because now, at this point of time, I can say the police is very much operationally independent. This is the only time I can happily say that. I can see a lot of smiles from the police officers, I can see that they are not exhausted.  I have been scared with some of the incidents they have gone through during  the last three years – some of the decisions that have come from executive of what to do and what not to do. These things are not here, I don’t get calls from my president. That is why I’m saying that this is a great time and I think that this is a time for our lawmakers to look at how this institution has been politicised, how can we improve for the new leaders; not only the executives but also the commissioners? How strong should the commissioner be to make sure the institution is not politicised?

I think these are the [important] areas and, of course, from all that we have seen about the arrest and detention of the criminal court judge, we can see that the whole thing is coming from the executive’s instructions. So what made the Home Minister and the Commissioner decide to come back and ask for assistance from the police, and the Commissioner to go to Defence, and the Defence Minister asking for the rank and files to make him arrest and all this – we have to look at these things. Do we want this to happen again? No. Do we want change of government like this? No. We are talking about making institutions professional, we are taking about strengthening institutions, we are talking about giving them space to effectively run the main responsibilities for the people.

Police are not there protect the government, police are there to protect the people. We have to differentiate these things, while in my position I have to decide whether my work will be to protect the government or should I use all my legal authority and machinery, the resources that we have, to protect the people. These are the decisions; these are two different things. I think in a democratic society, the policing is always for the people and I am confident that the President has pledged [this], and that was one of the reasons why I accepted to come back to the police. I have my trust and confidence in the president, also in my minister, and even if I get do get any unlawful order, I am confident to say that I will say no and I will  never do that. All the actions, all the decisions that we will take will be based on our legal positions, by ourselves. It will never be influenced by politicians.

DB: Has the precedent been set for police to overthrow government when unlawful orders are issued?

AR: I see February 6 as a day when the police have upheld the constitution and the laws of the land. They have been repeatedly instructed and given unlawful orders for which they have [refused to follow] several times. I see that as a day that they have upheld the law and constitution, I don’t see that they have overthrown the government. I see the whole process went very peacefully. I don’t see it as a coup either. I don’t know how it went inside the chambers of the Presidnt or inside his office, but obviously what I have seen is that he was very voluntarily resigning. I saw his resignation speech as well from close by, so I don’t see that there was any coup. I don’t believe the police force have overthrown the government.

In fact, if you look from minute to minute on the sixth, what they have been asking is for one thing –  not to give unlawful orders, that’s the only thing they had been demanding. That was with a reason. Why were they at the Republic Square? Because the seniors asked them to stay there. So, the events have unfolded the next day and several things have happened, and the President has decided.

Definitely, I was never involved in any coup. I can one hundred percent guarantee that if there is any investigation from any agency, I can one hundred percent say that I am very innocent in that. Whatever role I played, it was based on national interest, nothing else. We never wanted to see any bloodshed, we never wanted to see anything happen wrong there and that was a time when I thought that the nation had asked for my support or my presence. That is how I was there. Unless, if anything is proven in a court of law, I don’t think I can be convinced otherwise.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

High Court upholds Civil Court injunction against investigation of Judge Abdulla by judicial watchdog

The High Court today upheld a Civil Court injunction against the Judicial Services Commission (JSC)’s investigation of Chief Judge of the Criminal Court, Abdulla Mohamed.

Abdulla Mohamed was a central figure in the downfall of former President Mohamed Nasheed, following the military’s detention of the judge after the government accused him of political bias, obstructing police, stalling cases, links with organised crime and “taking the entire criminal justice system in his fist” to protect key figures of the former dictatorship from human rights and corruption cases.

Abdulla Mohamed obtained the Civil Court injunction against his investigation by the judicial watchdog in September 2011, after it produced a report stating that he had violated the Judge’s Code of Conduct by making a politically biased statement in an interview he gave to private broadcaster DhiTV.

The JSC appealed the injunction on January 24, claiming that the Civil Court had disregarded the commission’s constitutional mandate which allowed it to take action against judges, and argued that the court did not have the jurisdiction to overrule a decision of its own watchdog body.

The commission further argued the Judge Mohamed did not have the authority to seek the injunction preemptively as the commission had not yet taken action against him.

The JSC had therefore requested the High Court to terminate the injunction, citing contradictions to legal and court procedures.

However presiding High Court Judge Dr Azmiralda Zahir contended that the commission had not provided the court “any reason to terminate the injunction”.

Zahir further observed that the High Court would be violating the court procedures if it decided on the injunction before the Civil Court had reached its own verdict in the case.

She also added that that JSC could not establish a connection between the Civil Court’s injunction and jurisdiction of the court, and concluded it is not a reasonable argument to terminate the injunction.

Therefore, she ruled that the judges who evaluated the case had found no grounds to change the civil court’s injunction.

Former President’s member on the JSC and whistleblower Aishath Velezinee for several years contended that Abdulla Mohamed was a central, controlling “father figure” in the lower courts, answerable to former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom and a key figure responsible for scuttling the independence of the judiciary under the new constitution.

“When Abdulla Mohamed [was arrested by Nasheed’s government] I believe the opposition feared they were losing control over the judiciary, and that is why they came out on the streets. If you look at the so called public protests, it was opposition leaders and gang members. We did not see the so-called public joining them – they were a public nuisance really,” Velezinee observed, in a recent interview with Minivan News.

“For nearly three weeks they were going around destroying public property and creating disturbances. It wasn’t a people thing – we can say that. We locals – we know who was there on the streets. There is footage and evidence available of it. We’ve seen the destruction they were causing in Male’ every day.”

Following the arrest of the judge, Nasheed’s government appealed to the international community – in particular the Commonwealth, the International Committee of Jurists (ICJ) and the UN – for assistance in resolving the spiralling judicial crisis. A Commonwealth team arrived in the Maldives the day before Nasheed’s government was overthrown after a group of police sided with opposition demonstrators, attacking the military headquarters and seizing control of the state broadcaster.

Velezinee bemoaned the local and international focus on the arrest of the judge rather than the decline of the institution that led Nasheed’s government to such desperate interference in the judiciary.

“To the international community [the protesters] were a crowd of people – and to them that’s the public. It’s a public protest to them. But it was not. We need to consider who was involved in the free Abdulla Mohamed campaign. These are the same people I have previously accused of covering up and being conspirators in the silent coup,” Velezinee told Minivan News in an interview in February.

The first complaints against Abdulla Mohamed were filed in July 2005 by then Attorney General Dr Hassan Saeed – now Dr Waheed’s political advisor – and included allegations of misogyny, sexual deviancy, and throwing out an assault case despite the confession of the accused.

Asked in February this year whether he was satisfied with the investigation into the judge’s conduct and the action taken since his complaints in 2005, Dr Saeed replied that “under that constitution [President Gayoom] was the head of the judiciary. So it was my legal and moral obligation to raised that issue with him, which I did.

“I did not know if it was followed up. Obviously if there are issues it has to be resolved in accordance with the established laws and institutions.”

During the same interview, President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan said it was “for the judiciary to decide what to do with him, not for me.”

“I don’t want to interfere in the judiciary. I want our constitution to be respected, and work with everybody to make our constitution work. This is a new constitution, and it is the first time we are trying it out. And so there are difficulties in it. We need to find ways of solving it. It is time for us to work together, and if there are problems with the judiciary we need to work together to solve them – they are intelligent good people in the judiciary and the Judicial Services Commission (JSC).”

The Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM) last week summoned former President Mohamed Nasheed, former Home Minister Hassan Afeef, and former Defence Minister Tholath Ibrahim for questioning over their detention of the judge. It had promised to conclude the investigation by April.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Parliament schedules approval of Vice President, cabinet appointments

Parliament is to resume tomorrow after being stalled due to ongoing political turmoil in the Maldives.

Votes scheduled include approval for the appointments of President Dr Waheed’s Vice President and cabinet ministers.

On February 16, Dr Waheed appointed Dr Waheedudeen, a local business tycoon who was also an Atolls Minister under former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, as the Vice President.

According to the constitution of the Maldives, cabinet members require the consent of the parliament.

Dr Waheed also appointed Dr Abdul Samad Abdulla as Minister of Foreign Affairs, Abdulla Jihad as Minister of Finance and Treasury, Dr Mohamed Jameel – Vice President of the then-opposition Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP)as the Home Minister, Dr Asim Mohamed as the Minister of Education, Dr Ahmed Jamsheed as the Minister for Health and Ahmed Shafeeu as the Minister for Fisheries and Agriculture.

Prominent lawyer Azima Shukoor, who helped the former opposition win many court cases against Nasheed’s government, was appointed Attorney General. Dr Ahmed Shamheed was appointed Minister for Transport and Communication, Ahmed Adheed as Tourism Minster, Ahmed Mohamed as the Minister for Economic Development, Dr Ahmed Muiz as the Minister for Housing and Environment, Gayoom’s Spokesperson Mohamed Hussain ‘Mundhu’ Shareef as the Minister for Human Resources Youth and Sports, Mohamed Nazim as Defence Minister, and Sheikh Mohamed Shaheem Ali Saeed as Islamic Minister.

Shaheem had resigned as State Minister for Islamic Affairs under Nasheed’s government  following the burning of the Israeli flag in Republic Square over opposition to a visiting delegation of Israeli eye surgeons, whom Islamic NGOs had accused of coming to the Maldivies to illegally harvest organs. Shaheem was one of the speakers at the event, along with current Vice President of Gayoom’s Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM) Umar Naseer, voicing anger at the acceptance of aid from Israel.

Current Health Minister Jamsheed was the Head of the Centre for Community Health and Disease Control (CCHDC) during Nasheed’s administration, but  later resigned saying he had no work to do in the CCHDC and that there no purpose in such a position.

The Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) has meanwhile alleged that the new Vice President was one of the powerful businessmen who assisted the coup financially.

MDP obstructed the first attempt made by the Speaker to hold the first parliament sitting of the year, during which Dr Waheed was supposed to deliver his presidential speech. The sitting was eventually called off.

The second attempt was made to hold the sitting on March 19, in which Dr Waheed managed to delivered a truncated version amid MDP MPs heckling him and calling him “traitor”. Police meanwhile clashed with protesters outside the parliament.

Speaking to Minivan News, MDP MP Hamid Abdul Ghafoor said the Speaker would ask for a vote to send the issue to the committee, and then MDP MPs would object to it because the party did not recognise the legitimacy of Dr Waheed’s government, and therefore the ministers and Vice President in it.

”Our stand is that we represent the government, so we will not give a response to the Presidential Speech given by the traitor,” he said. ”We believe that Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) is the main opposition party and they have to respond to the speech.”

Further complicating matters is that Dr Waheed’s party has no MPs in the parliament, a unforeseen circumstance unforeseen in the parliamentary regulations which requires an MP of the ruling party to present bills on behalf of the government.

”We will be actively involved in all the parliament’s work, but we will object to issues we find unacceptable,” Ghafoor said.

In the early hours of February 7, police and military officers defied orders of the then-President Nasheed and joined opposition in a protest held in Republican Square, demanding the release of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed.

At first a squad of police joined the protesters, confrontation between the police and army officers sparked the arrival of more police and eventually an attack on military headquarters.

Police officers demanded to see the then-police commissioner Ahmed Faseeh, who resigned hours later.

Former senior officers under Gayoom’s government then took over the police and started giving orders, which were obeyed.

Police and army officers then began calling for the resignation of the president, who remained inside the defence force headquarters with a handful of army officers still loyal to him.

Several attempts were made by Nasheed to control the situations, but the military and police split int two groups and spread throughout the city, joined by opposition supporters.

A large group carrying weapons such as iron bars, knives, machetes and other such items entered the state broadcaster in Galolhu and brought the station under their control.

Protesters in police vehicles and  army trucks were deployed near the MDP Office in Galolhu and the office was vandalised.

Nasheed subsequently resigned, allegedly “under duress”, and Dr Waheed took over the position.

There was a spike in lawlessness in Male’ City that day, as young people took advantage of the police being busy with politics, riding motorbikes in breach of almost all the road safety regulations, while others were seen rolling joints on the streets and carrying sharp weapons.

On January 28, newspaper Miadhu reported that Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) Deputy Leader Umar Naseer had told private TV channel VTV that Vice President Mohamed Waheed Hassan would constitutionally become the next President of the Maldives after President Nasheed resigned from the post at the climax of the judicial crisis.

The paper at the time reported Naseer as saying that ‘’very soon the army and police will give up and leave the President because they know he is being trapped by increasing abuses of power and violation of the Constitution.’’’

‘’It may be tonight, tomorrow or a month from now when the defence forces and police decide to leave the President – and that is the deciding moment,’’ Naseer said. “At that time, Vice President Waheed will take over according to the Constitution. We do not have any wish to get positions of the new Government, but we expect the new government will be a national government.’’

MDP Parliamentary Group Media Coordinator and MP Mohamed Shifaz, MP Mariya Didi, MDP MP Mohamed Musthafa and MDP Spokesperson and MP Imthiyaz Fahmy ‘Inthi’ did not respond to Minivan News at time of press.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Coup was live on TV, Nasheed tells One Earth

For a man who was tossed out of office by a police and military revolt less than two months ago, former President Mohamed Nasheed of the Maldives seems positively ebullient, determined to dramatise the dangers of climate change just as passionately as a citizen activist as he did as a head of state, writes George Black for One Earth magazine, in a Q&A with Nasheed.

GB: People say that a big part of your appeal is that you don’t play by the normal diplomatic rules.

MN: Well, what have the rules of diplomacy done for the specific situation we face? Last month there was a coup in the Maldives. But the United States and India were unable to understand what was happening. What’s to understand? The coup was live on TV! The problem with normal diplomacy is that it just wants to maintain the status quo.

GB: I’m guessing you see a parallel there to the rules of diplomacy as they were practiced in Copenhagen.

MN: People don’t want to move away from what’s comfortable. They like things the way they are. They come to the talks, they go home to their beautiful wife and their kids. They have no passion. You can’t express your concerns openly in the normal language of diplomacy. You lose sight of the bigger picture, so you develop short-sighted solutions. Your diplomacy is played out according to the text messages you’re getting from certain industries.

Read more

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

India’s image tarnished in Maldives: Zee News

There is no doubt that Nasheed, the self-proclaimed great lover of India, not only helped New Delhi track down extremists but also keep an edge over China in the India Ocean, writes Kamna Arora for Zee News.

Nasheed, 44, even questioned after receiving cold shoulder from New Delhi: “My question to Indian establishment is that if they think we did not perform, do they think this is a better option?” referring to the opposition Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) of former dictator Abdul Gayoom. “Unlike PPM, we are a group of people who strongly believe in India, their role and functions in Indian Ocean and the relationship that we want with India,” he said.

The former Maldivian president went on to predict that India will lose to China under the new regime. India’s image also got tarnished in Maldives, which relies heavily on New Delhi for everything ranging from employment and education to health services and entertainment. A Maldivian friend, who declined to be named, told me that the swift recognition of the new regime has dented New Delhi’s image so much that ordinary Maldivians do not trust India anymore. What is India’s plan to regain that trust is yet to be found out.

Reports indicate that the new Maldivian regime is closer to inking a defence agreement with China. If that happens, what is India’s plan to gain an edge apropos China in the Indian Ocean region?

Read more

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

New York Times reviews the Island President

The Island President is “unabashedly pro-Nasheed”, writes Vikas Bajaj for the New York Times.

“It depicts the short, slim 44-year-old with an infectious smile as a champion of democracy and human rights. In spite of the odds against him, he tries to browbeat, beg and shame world powers like the United States, China and India into committing to reductions in greenhouse gases so his people and hundreds of millions like them do not become “climate refugees.”

Much of the movie was shot between Mr Nasheed’s 2008 election and a global climate change summit meeting in Copenhagen in late 2009. The filmmakers had unusually free access to Mr Nasheed and his team, filming him in internal strategy meetings, with his family and in discussions with leaders from other countries and global organizations.

“When people see the film, hopefully the transparency of it will be so apparent,” Director Mr Jon Shenk said. “You can’t help but see Nasheed for what he is.”

Mr. Shenk said that in addition to raising awareness about climate change, he now wants his film to convince the world that Mr. Nasheed was deposed in a coup that was orchestrated by loyalists to the former dictator, Maumoon Abdul Gayoom.

“That might be the single most important thing that the movie can do,” Mr. Shenk, who co-directed the critically acclaimed documentary “Lost Boys of Sudan” (2003), said in a telephone interview from his office in San Francisco. “It’s now clear that this new government is not democratic, that the people who run the ministries are the same people who were there under the dictator.”

One scene, in which Mr. Nasheed is in his waiting room speaking to a citizen, appears to foreshadow the more recent turmoil in the country. It’s July 2009, three months before Mr. Nasheed would make an important speech in Copenhagen. A tired Mr. Nasheed confesses to the man that he is increasingly powerless to do what he wants because domestic opposition is hardening against him.

In a sense “Island President” is the biggest media event Mr. Nasheed could have hoped for, though the attention he now needs has more to do with his country’s domestic political turmoil then climate change.

The film comes as rival factions are presenting to the rest of the world vastly different narratives of what happened on Feb. 7, when Mr. Nasheed stepped down, and what should happen next.

Read more

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Comment: Nasheed’s messy democratic revolution

Before we go to the ballot box again, we must understand why the first elected government was so short-lived. Some point to Nasheed’s activist personality, others to Gayoom’s control over the judiciary, and many cite political opponents’ impatience to attain power. All these highlight the dominance of personalities in our political landscape, and the lack of institutionalism in political behavior and state affairs. One underlying factor, that has received little attention in the public domain, but is emerging as Waheed’s ministers dissect Nasheed’s policies, is the economy.

Incumbents generally avoid talking about sovereign debt, budget deficits, and budget cuts, unless they are criticising their opponent’s budget in a campaign trail. And the few times that a sitting president talks about his own budget, it is a glossed over version of how well the economy is doing, how the GDP will double in the coming year, how inflation is expected to fall, and how food and fuel prices will drop to affordable levels. The electorate is usually unaware of how serious the budget deficit is, and ignorant of the perplexities involved in budget cuts under a democratic government. So it is no surprise that the electorate judges its government unfairly when it comes to economic management. Most accept the hollow promises, and expect results, but governments that are strapped for cash, more often than not, cannot deliver.

This poses big problems for a developing country struggling to implement democracy. First, the pressure on incumbents to deliver in times of deficits threatens democratic institutionalisation. Nasheed, who was up for re-election, tried to deliver at any cost, and chose to bypass democratic practices to achieve quick results. Take for example the airport lease. To meet budget needs, Nasheed chose the bidder who offered the largest sum up front, not the bidder with the best plan. When the airport board resigned, he put together a new board overnight to force the deal amidst allegations of foul play. The opposition was no doubt disloyal and irresponsible under Nasheed, and attempted to block and discredit his administration on all fronts. Nasheed tackled these problems by choosing to interpret laws and regulations in his favor, which meant there was little conformity in the state of affairs. Alas, the process of democratic institutionalization was nipped in the bud.

But the deeper problem for democracy in Maldives is not this.

Corrupt practices, and the dominance of personalities over institutions are merely manifestations of a problem that runs deeper: It essentially boils down to the dilemma of maintaining democracy without its protectors, saviors, and messiahs, in other words, a middle class; a middle class that will prop up democracy because it is the most conducive system to protecting its economic interests, and values of individual autonomy and self-expression.

If a middle class exists in Maldives, it has neither the numbers, nor the voice, to stand up for democratic principles.

Agents of Democracy

Middles classes are central to democratic analyses for two reasons: they install democracy, and ensure that it is “the only game in town” and there to stay.

Historically, democracy was born out of revolutions led or hijacked by the bourgeois, the land-owning middle class. In the UK, democracy followed the Glorious Revolution of the 17th century where the bourgeois who had accumulated wealth over time, gained enough power in the Long Parliament to demand that the king trade some political power in return for the right to tax. Likewise, in France, a revolution planted the seeds of democracy. In the 1700s, the French bourgeoisie, aided by a peasant revolution, formed the Constituent Assembly in opposition to the Estates General, abolished feudalism, and established the first French Republic.

Several centuries later, the salience of the middle class for democracy is not lost on us. Political Scientist Francis Fukuyama wrote a paper recently asking, “Can liberal democracy survive the decline of the middle class?” In it, he argues that one of challenges to democracy today is the left’s inability to articulate a realistic agenda that has any hope of protecting a middle-class society.

A multiparty election in 2008 in Maldives was not a result of a mass movement, or a middle class led revolution. It was as much a coup from within against Gayoom by his own ministers, and pressure from outside by a group of courageous and determined individuals, and by foreign governments. For a short key duration, this medley of actors took upon themselves, the responsibilities of a middle class, and installed democracy in Maldives.

The Middle Class Dilemma

If the role of the middle class as initiators has been lacking in second and third wave democracies, its absence is all the more apparent in the aftermath of the first free and fair elections. Political scientists concede that the statement “No bourgeois, no democracy,” holds true in most cases. The theory goes that, industrialisation sets in motion a process of modernisation that penetrates all aspects of life, “bringing occupational specialisation, urbanisation, rising educational levels, rising life expectancy, and rapid economic growth.” In short, industrialisation sets in motion modernization that gives birth to a middle class that at once demand “their right to have rights.” The order is important: development leads to democracy, because it creates a middle class in whose self-interest it is to support democratic values. The history of democracy in the West suggests that the growth of a middle class must precede the successful installation of democracy.

This sequence of events- industrialisation, modernisation, democracy- poses a grave problem for us.

To create a middle class, there has to be development. But fostering development within a democratic framework is a serious challenge in low-income countries. Nasheed was handed this gargantuan task when he came to power in 2008. Indian Scholar Ashutosh Varshney explains India’s struggle to do the same: “India is attempting a transformation few nations in modern history have successfully managed: liberalising the economy within an established democratic order.It is hard to escape the impression that market interests and democratic principles are uneasily aligned in India today. The two are not inherently contradictory, but there are tensions between them that India’s leaders will have to manage carefully.”

Why? Because “market-based policies meant to increase the efficiency of the aggregate economy frequently generate short-term dislocations and resentment. In a democratic polity, this resentment often translates at the ballot box into a halt or a reversal of pro-market reforms.” Successful western democracies, the US, the U., and France installed democracies after their countries transitioned to capitalist modes of production and modernised. They liberalised their markets before universal suffrage.

Nasheed’s struggle

Absent development or a revolution that transforms the economy in favor of the many, the onus of creating a middle class falls on the nascent democratic government. Nasheed’s policy objectives were in line with creating a middle class. Whether he implemented market reforms because of serious budget deficits or because of a genuine concern with redistribution, is beside the point. Head on, and fully aware who held the reigns to campaign funds, Nasheed tackled the loaded question of how to shift from an economy that enriches a few, to one that increases the pie and divvies it up more equally.

All said and done, and numerous controversies over lease agreements, minimum wage bills, and the right to strike, his tax reforms were a revolutionary break with the past. It was a first attempt at usurping the status quo. There were more. The barter system- trading an island for a harbor, a sewerage system, or a housing project- drove down the value of uninhabited islands, threatened to increase supply, and drive down the value of existing tourism products. Not only did Nasheed increase supply, but islands were handed left and right to new entrants to the tourism industry, threatening the existing oligarchy. In short, if there was a democratic revolution in Maldives, it was during Nasheed’s administration, encapsulated in his controversial market reforms that attempted to usurp the status quo, and re-distribute wealth. It was messy, it was fraught with corruption, but it was the closest we came to one.

Whereas market reforms disproportionately affect the poor in neighboring India, the unique Maldivian economy dictated that the grand oligarchy, the tourism tycoons, bore the brunt of market reforms in Maldives. A backlash was to be expected.

Nasheed’s mistake

Nasheed administration’s struggles demonstrate the dissonance in democratic theory when applied in a postindustrial world. But he also made calls that were unnecessary, and aggravated the problem of consolidating democracy without a middle class.

One of Nasheed’s biggest mistakes was in trying to modernise the masses overnight, before his policies yielded results. In a parallel process (to his market reforms), and too late in the game, Nasheed attempted to modernise through rhetoric (the likes of “Medhumin Rally”), poor decision-making (SAARC monuments), and behavior that cast him as not Islamic enough. He challenged the majority’s most dearly held identity, which is growing to be a stronger Islamic identity. The process of modernising a people is a carefully measured process that requires a special focus on reform in the economic and social realms, so that wealth and intellect are distributed more equally. And it takes time.

So it is no surprise that despite building several harbors, installing a health post on every inhabited island, increasing housing units in urban areas, and implementing a tax system, people in the outer islands, who benefited more under Nasheed than Gayoom, continues to support Gayoom’s party over the MDP. In the local council elections, which served as a referendum on the MDP government, the MDP lost most of the council seats in the outer islands, despite a well-organised campaign, and over 100 island visits by Nasheed himself.

Given such realities, the next elected government should expect no immediate rewards from the masses at the ballot box contingent on policy successes, and must be wise enough to withstand a backlash from the wealthy in the face of controversial yet necessary market reforms. The next government we elect will face the same challenges Nasheed’s did, but it can avoid ad hoc and impulsive decision-making that contributed to his accelerated downfall.

Fostering development that creates a middle class within a democratic framework is a serious challenge, perhaps one that has very few success stories. But one thing is for certain: it requires a strategising leadership that is strong enough to stand up to the business elite, yet thoughtful enough to understand the nuances dictating democratic consolidation.

The way things are moving in Maldives, I doubt we will have an election before 2013. But a bigger threat for democracy in Maldives is, come Election Day, we may not have a strong and serious leadership to vote for. If the focus is only on an election date, we are giving our politicians a free ride to power, and passing on a second chance at democracy.

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)

Government “won’t be bullied by MDP”, Dunya tells Sunday Times

Daughter of former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom and newly-appointed State Minister of Foreign Affairs, Dunya Maumoon, has told Sri Lanka’s Sunday Times that “the government of President Waheed refuses to be bullied by the Maldivian Democratic PArty (MDP) into any particular position.”

Following meetings with the diplomatic community in Colombo, Dunya acknowledged that many were keen to know when the early election would be held.

“Most of the diplomatic community understand and believe the commitment of the government to strengthening democracy and protecting human rights, but some countries are very focused on the election date. But this is not the starting point for the dialogue process. Many other steps we have to take before that, and one, is to let parliament progress,” she told the Times.

“The MDP says they are not going to let anything proceed unless a date is given for an election. We are adamant that they don’t bully us by holding on to that election date. The government is in command. The President has considerable support. It is not right to allow a single party or a single individual to hold the country to ransom,” she said.

Gayoom would play an advisory role “behind the scenes”, she said.

“My father wants to be behind the scenes”

“My father has extended his support to President Waheed and he has offered his services in an advisory role but he wants to be behind the scenes,” Dunya said.

Former President Mohamed Nasheed maintains that the new government came to power in a coup de’tat, after he was forced to resign “under duress”.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)