Tag: democracy

Comment: The extremities of democracy

The biggest threat to Maldivian democracy, it is increasingly said, is ‘extremism’.

Yes, there is an existential threat to Maldivian identity and its traditional belief system from specific sects and ideological movements claiming a monopoly on Islam.

But, how effective a counter strategy is it to pin the broad label of ‘extremists’ on them, describe them as a threat to our democracy, and place them outside of rational engagement? Is it not a contradiction in terms to describe as a threat to our democracy what are in fact the strongest, loudest and most influential voices within it?

Ignoring the role that democracy has played in their success reduces the chances of mounting a credible challenge. Consider how they came to be such change-makers in the first place.

The campaign for the ‘hearts and minds’ of the Maldivian people, which the Wahabbis or Salafis (and/or other groups yet to be officially documented) have run for the last decade is as thoroughly modern a campaign as any in the world’s most established democracies.

It was launched at the grassroots level and taken to the very top, sustained throughout by clever use of modern media. Their message is simple and powerful as most media-savvy messages are: “We come with The Right Islam. Reform, or forever be damned”.

From every available media platform – traditional and new, mainstream and niche – they have, for the last ten years, repeated the same message: “Our Islam is The Right Islam. Embrace it, or go to hell.”

These movements, just like any other successful democratic campaign, did not merely saturate the media with their message, but made their presence felt deep within the community. They pounded the pavements to talk the talk, made door-to-door calls, opened corner shops, performed acts of charity and carved out for themselves important roles within the community.

Their representatives are in Parliament, lobbying hard to push through changes that would make the law of their choice the dominant (or only) law in the country. With the same goal in mind, they impede the progress of any legislation they deem incompatible with their own ideologies, dismissing them as ‘un-Islamic’.

In doing so, they reiterate the same message at the top as they do at the bottom: “We have brought with us The Right Islam, the only Islam. Reform, or be forever damned.”

Their presence is similarly strong in the administration itself, with their representatives holding office at all levels from the ministerial cabinet to the filing cabinet. They have forged strategic political alliances that allow them leverage in key policy decisions they deem are in conflict with their ideologies. They have eager activists ready to take to the streets to protest against policy decisions they are unhappy with. Their presence is prominent in the judiciary to an even greater extent than it is in the other two branches of power.

From educational qualifications to dress code and type of punishment meted out – it is their beliefs that are being pushed as the judicial norm.

Bolstered by their unprecedented success on the domestic front, they have tried to stretch their reach to foreign policy and beyond, offering ‘extremist rehabilitation expertise’ to the wider world. Throughout all this, their campaign remains on message: “We have brought you The Right Islam. Reform, or be forever damned.”

The successes of their campaign to establish themselves as the official form of Islamic belief in the Maldives cannot be denied: it is most startlingly visible in our appearance – from the way we dress and how we comport ourselves to our demeanour.

Beyond the visible, these movements are rapidly changing the very fabric of Maldivian society. They have: (re)introduced draconian practises long since abandoned such as marriage of under-age girls, sex slavery and genital mutilation; legitimised domestic violence by providing instructions on a ‘right way’ and a ‘wrong way’ to hit a woman; sanctioned marital rape as an inviolable right of every husband to demand sex from his wife(s); reduced the female gender to no more than objects of sex, servitude and reproduction; and sexualised girls, some times as young as four or five, by making them wear the veil. This is a practise that, in effect, condones paedophilia with its underlying assumption that it is natural or normal – not aberrant or abnormal – for adult males to be sexually aroused by prepubescent children.

These movements, along with others, are fundamentally changing what it means to be Maldivian, what it means to be Muslim in the Maldives, and what Islam means to Maldivians.

But, whatever we may think of these movements – enlightened, misguided or crazy – it would be unwise to place them outside of our democracy. Such a claim is based on the assumption that democracy is an antidote to extreme thoughts, beliefs and any resultant violence.

To the contrary, research has shown that democracy – precisely because of its inherent freedoms – offers a more conducive an environment to the expression of extreme views, thoughts, and violence, than other forms of government. If we are to adequately deal with these movements, we need to do it within, and with, democracy.

We must first recognise the movements for what they are: political actors engaged in a democratic battle for power. They are running on the platform of religion, heaven is their campaign promise, and they have taken Islam hostage as their running mate.

Instead of labelling them ‘extremists’ – synonymous now with ‘crazies’ – they need to be confronted as rational actors with a specific political agenda. Without that recognition, it is not possible to adequately challenge their bid to establish a religious hegemony in the Maldives.

Seeing them as political contenders rather than a purely religious presence also creates the opportunity to loosen their stranglehold on Islam. Their success in convincing Maldivians that they have brought us ‘The Right Islam’ is most evident in how any criticism of their practices, rituals and beliefs has come to be immediately and unequivocally equated with criticism of Islam itself.

The myth that Islam is not just monotheistic but also monolithic has been propagated so successfully by the campaign machines of these pseudo-religious ideologues that it has come to be accepted as the ‘truth’, a given that is rarely if ever questioned.

It is this deafening silence of the opposition and their inability to perceive of, and engage with, these movements as legitimate forces within our democracy that pose the biggest challenge to its existence. None of the organs of democracy – of the state or within civil society – have so far challenged their campaigns and their Messiah-like claims of having brought The Right Islam to ignorant Maldives living in Jaahiliyaa.

The Maldivian Constitution ties its people unequivocally to Islam, but it does not demand that citizens follow a particular sect or ideology within the religion.

These ideologues – as part of our democracy – have every right to their beliefs, but they do not have the right to coerce or force all other Maldivians to follow them in their chosen path. It is the democratic right of every Maldivian to refuse to listen to their messages, to freely discuss, and observe, other ways of practising Islam and to deny them a monopoly on God.

Neglecting to do so is not just self-censorship but a betrayal of the democratic ideals that the Maldives and a majority of its people have embraced.

These religious sects have gained such influence within the Maldivian society not only because of the strengths of their campaign but equally because of the weaknesses of the opposition.

As a democracy, the government cannot be in the business of regulating people’s beliefs; it is up to the people to stand up for themselves and refuse to become subservient to another. If those who disagree remain silent – either as hostages to the dogma that to oppose these politico-religious movements is to oppose Islam; or because they are branded ‘extremists’ and denied rationality – their success is assured.

If that is not the direction in which we wish to take the Maldives, we need to find out who these people are, what they believe in and what they really want. We need to create a public sphere in which we can openly challenge these beliefs and goals. The biggest threat to our democracy is our failure to use our democratic right to disagree. It is in this silence that the frighteningly real prospect of a democratically-elected theocracy is growing stronger every day.

Munirah Moosa is a journalism and international relations graduate. She is currently engaged in research into the radicalisation of Muslim communities and its impact on international security.

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)

Comment: How a democracy was derailed

Republished with permission from the report by Aishath Velezinee titled ‘Democracy Derailed: The unconstitutional annulment of Article 285; and its’ consequences for democratic government in the Maldives.’ Full version, with footnotes, can be downloaded here (English).

The Maldives is a long-time constitutional autocracy used to a President with all the powers of the State.
The President – signified in persona by former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom who held the title the past 30 years – was a President who could, and often would, allot land for service, provide medical assistance and scholarship to the worthy, and could hand out jobs with titles and benefits to fit the social status of those hand-picked.
The President also policed the streets, undertook investigations, administered justice, interpreted law, set standards of “jurisprudence”, and held the final word and verdict as the last resort of appeal, the Supreme Justice, where the Courts failed.
Those who fell afoul of the regime were restrained for public order, and those who gained favour were blessed by the good government of the day. The stress was on homogeneity, a people of one language, one religion, one ideology, one voice and one mind.
The peaceful transition to separation of powers and constitutional democracy on August 07, 2008, then, is already situated in this socio-cultural and political context.
On the dawn of August 08, 2008, little of the political realities of a 30-year regime changed. With no interim caretaker arrangement, President Gayoom continued in office until elections; even then choosing to contest, running for his 7th five-year term, with the interim Supreme Court decision that the two-term limit on presidents did not apply to President Gayoom for he is a first time contender under the “new” Constitution.
The manifest change then, to the lay observer, as well as media and the public, is the change of a President in three decades, when President Mohamed Nasheed won the 2008 elections and took office on 11 November 2008.
Today, neither the media and general public, nor the politicians, appear to quite understand that all powers are not vested in the President once a State adopts separation of powers.
The role of the Parliament in government, the role of the Judiciary to promote democracy and ensure good government, the role of the Civil Service to be loyal to the government of the day and implement policy, the differential roles of independent bodies and their positions as powerful and trusted accountability agencies to hold together the constitutional democracy is overshadowed by politics.
The Judicial Services Commission

Ignored by the media and citizen as outside the main political arena, is the Judicial Service Commission (JSC); with the constitutional mandate to establish an independent judiciary in the first two-years of the Constitution, to protect independence of judges, and to promote public confidence in the judicial system.
An offspring of the former Ministry of Justice, the JSC was set up by MP Ahmed Zahir, a former Minister of Justice, and the first Chairperson of the JSC.
Staff of the abolished Ministry of Justice took the lead positions, bringing in their personal connections to judges developed over years of daily dealings when the Ministers of Justice provided administrative support, legal advice, as well as guidance on verdicts in some cases before the Courts.
Thus, self-interpreted as the Guardian of the Judiciary with a duty to protect the judges, the JSC rejects Rule of Law, Accountability and Transparency as “threats to judicial independence”.
JSC’s approach is to defend judges, deny complaints, interrogate complainants, ensure financial security and other benefits to judges, and to provide bodyguards and protection of the police to judges when public discontent against a judge becomes serious; leading to impunity amongst judges, not all, but the few whose names come up serially.
Few amongst the general public, or media, understand the critical position of the Judicial Service Commission in institutionalising democratic government, or its constitutional powers, duties and obligations; or its unique role in its first term of office.
Those who do understand either confuse the public more with their “polititalk” or remain silent, for they have far more to lose than gain of an Independent Judiciary.
The Parliament majority being those who administered the judges, and the justice system of yesterday, have shown no interest in checking JSC.
Worse still, is that the judges themselves are miseducated into the notion that independence of judges equals non-interference by the President. With this, the “leaders” of the judiciary adopted for themselves the role of the former Minister of Justice; and the Judges Association became a tool, used strategically, to confuse the public, and judges themselves.
The Interim Supreme Court took on “parental responsibilities”, miseducating of judges, putting out self-interested rulings, amending laws to reorganize the judiciary, and strengthening their hold on the judiciary as a whole, by usurping powers and taking control, of the JSC, denying an independent check on the judiciary.
Insulated behind closed doors, inadmissible to anyone but those ten members privileged under Article 158 of the Constitution, the JSC does what it wills, without check or penalty.
JSC’s resistance to change, denial of democracy, and breach of trust – the irresponsibility, irrationality, and self-interest of its members, and their refusal to uphold Constitutional duties and obligations – and, downright treachery in dismissing Article 285 as ‘symbolic’ is the greatest challenge to the Constitution (2008), Rule of Law and democratic government in the Maldives.
Why Article 285?

Article 285, is, in my informed opinion based on privileged access to restricted records on the judges database as well as records on their official files, and discussions with those few judges I have had the honour to meet, the backbone of
democratic government in the Maldives.
The drafters of the Constitution, many of whom now sit in Parliament (Majlis) including Speaker Abdulla Shahid and MP
Dr Afraasheem Ali – who are also ex-officio members of the JSC – shared the same vision, at least at the time of Constitution drafting.
It is a pragmatic clause, a necessity when one considers the Judiciary is often the weakest link in “new democracies” (UN, 2000); and an obligation when one considers the realities of the Maldives’ Administration of Justice under the
previous Constitution (1998); and the vast difference it had to the Independent Judiciary the Constitution (2008) envision to achieve in fifteen years, by 2023.
The judges appointed prior to 7 August 2008, were appointed by the Minister of Justice, some hand-picked on to the bench as pay-off for their various political contributions or some other service.
They all have a Certificate in Justice Studies (or similar title, of a duration of six months to two years), awarded on completion of a tailor-made crash course offered upon the adoption of the Constitution (1998).
Not all sitting judges have a formal education of any substance, nor are they fluent in a second language, and little opportunity for knowledge improvement or professional development was provided.
It was not necessary as all decisions could be guided by the legal teams at the Ministry of Justice. Only about 40 among about 200 sitting judges are graduates.
Of the 40 graduates not all hold an LLB – some have degrees in Sharia’ or in another subject, acquired from an Arab university.
The “ruling” of current Chair Adam Mohamed Abdulla being that all Arab Universities include Sharia’ as a mandatory subject in all programmes qualifying all graduates from Egypt, Yemen and Saudi Arabia to the bench.
Competency of a judge was decided based simply upon a judges’ physical health, ie. his ability to come into Court.
As for impunity and misconduct, records show judges have rarely received more than an administrative caution by the Minister of Justice for such serious crimes as breach of trust and abuse of power and negligence, as well as serious sexual offences, possession of pornography etc.
Most of the complaints lodged with the Ministry of Justice by members of the Public remain unattendedxiii in the judges’ personal files and include not only misconduct, but serious allegations of a criminal nature such as repeated sexual offences against minors.
The public has tales of islands where few women dare go to claim child support for fear of Magistrates who expect sexual favours in return, of islands where Magistrates dictate personal edict in place of law etc.
Whilst none of these public complaints were addressed, what was taken seriously, records show, was disobedience in refusals to follow orders of the Ministry of Justice. As long as the directives of the Minister of Justice were followed the judges had absolute powers to act with impunity if they so deemed. Some often did so.
A few had returned to the bench after serving criminal sentences, and some had continued on the bench with no penalty despite having been found guilty of dishonesty.
Article 285 placed upon JSC the duty and obligation to assess every sitting judge appointed prior the Constitution (2008) coming into force, to confirm whether or not they possess all the qualifications of a judge as required under Article 285.
The purpose, from a rights-based approach, is two-fold: first, to assure the public that all judges are qualified and worthy of their high office on the bench, and are thus capable of building and maintaining public confidence and trust in the judiciary; and second, to provide judges with the necessary knowledge, capacity and most important of all, confidence to work in independence.
The sitting judges recruited for the Administration of Justice, having had no orientation on the newly introduced doctrine of governance, Article 285 was a personal affront as evident from three statements issued by the Judges Association.
That Article 285 is an obligation to the people, and not an offence to judges, who after all were quite qualified to preside over trials where the Ministry of Justice [or later the Courts in Male’ could guide and direct cases, and provide support to judges, was never explained.
Instead, it became a tool for the self-acclaimed leaders of the judiciary to be used in fear-mongering and controlling the
judiciary.
Power Play and Politics

Interim Supreme Court Justice Abdulla Saeed who, as head of the Interim Supreme Court, declared himself the Chief Justice and the interim bench as the Supreme Court in the days running up to the end of the two-year interim term, did not see it as his duty to correct the judges’ misconception, but rather was actively engaged in miseducating judges, creating strife, and causing discord between the administration of President Nasheed and the Judiciary.
In the name of developing judges for the new Constitution and upgrading them to meet the educational standards required, Justice Abdulla Saeed brought to Male’ batches of Magistrates from the islands, using them as tools, and breaching the innocent trust they placed in Justice Abdulla Saeed as the Godfather of the Judiciary.
Dr Afraasheem Ali (MP) who chaired the JSC Committee to develop an on-the-job training plan for those judges who meet all other requirements, decided to have the Magistrates trained by his old school, the College of Islamic Studies, even going so far as to train the Magistrates himself, personally, as a part-time lecturer.
Once JSC set to work on deciding indicators for assessment, it became clear this was one for discord. On one side was Justice Abdul Ghani Mohamed of the High Court with a graduate degree in Sharia’ and Law, who wished to uphold the vision of the Constitution to have a high quality judiciary established in 15 years as provided by Article 285.
In opposition were Justice Mujuthaaz Fahmy of the Interim Supreme Court and Judge Abdulla Didi of the Criminal Court.
Justice Mujuthaaz Fahmy intently argued that lack of education could be not be considered an impediment, and nor should misconduct before 2000 be taken into account.
Quite a logical reading when one considers Justice Mujuthaaz held a six-month tailor-made Certificate of Sentencing, and had on record a conviction by the Anti-Corruption Board for embezzling State funds – a minor matter of pocketing Rf900 for overtime in 1998.
Judge Abdulla Didi rarely joins in discussion, unless it is the matter of Criminal Court “Chief Judge” Abdulla Mohamed’s
misconduct, a matter that has been under investigation for a whole year now, costing the State over Rf100,000 to date in fees for Committee sittings.
Justice Mujuthaaz Fahmy sulked, willfully dragging the matter until the balance was in his favour, with the High Court “mutiny” of 21 January 2010 where three Justices colluded to publicly accuse High Court Chief Justice Abdul Ghani Mohamed of misconduct and remove him from the JSC by a Resolution.
Justice Mujuthaaz Fahmy as Vice Chair took the helm replacing the outgoing Justice Abdul Ghani Mohamed, and all turned into mayhem at JSC as, what I have reason to believe is a high-level conspiracy, was carried out aggressively by the majority; six of the ten members whose personal and political interest it was to retain the former Administration of Justice.
The matter of Article 285 remained pending till the arrival of Justice Adam Mohamed Abdulla on 18 February 2010, when a new task-force of four judges (two from the Commission, and two hand-picked from outside by Justice Mujuthaaz Fahmy) set to work under the efficient direction of the Interim Civil Service Commission Chair, Dr Mohamed Latheef.
In perhaps the most methodical effort in JSC so far, Dr Latheef had the indicators/standards decided in
three days, working an hour and a half each day. The only consideration, it appeared, was to make sure no sitting judge fell outside the standards.
Once “decided”, there was no room for debate at the Commission. MP Dr Afraasheem Ali, with falsely assumed “authority” declared, speaking in his capacity as MP, that Article 285 was ‘symbolic’.
Speaker Abdulla Shahid remained silent, choosing to evade the question even when asked pointedly to explain to JSC
members the purpose and object of Article 285.
When Justice Mujuthaaz Fahmy took over, all the work done during Justice Abdul Ghani’s time disappeared off the record, including submissions I myself had made in writing.
None of it was tabled or shared amongst the members. The “majority”, all of whom stood to gain from a wholesome transfer rather than a transformation of the Judiciary in line with the Constitutional Democracy decided, by mob rule, that all judges would be reconfirmed – for reasons that certainly are not in the best interest of the people, nation, or constitution.
Unfettered by concerns raised by President Mohamed Nasheed, Chair of the Constitution Drafting Committee former MP Ibrahim Ismail, or the public; and with the tacit blessings of the Parliament majority, JSC held the judges under lock and key to ensure, the all judges were re-appointed for life.
That is an estimated 30 to 40 years when one considers the average age of judges and the retirement age of
70. No judge may be removed unless JSC recommends, and the Parliament votes a judge out.
JSC being a Members Only club, electronically locked within the Department of Judicial Administration premises, and under the parental guidance of the Supreme Court, no one, not a single journalist, judge or member of the public, is privy to the details of what went on at JSC.
The records of meetings are not available for public scrutiny, nor are they shared with the media or members of the judiciary. Even members are prevented from accessing audio records of sittings, the written minutes being edited by the Chair where he sees fit.
The fact is that the majority was achieved through pay-offs and “mob rule” rather than rule of law; and upheld self interest rather than national or public interest.
To benefit are:
(i) members of the previous regime holding majority in parliament, some of whom stand accused of serious crimes;
(ii) former Ministers of Justice and former Attorney Generals who appear before the Court as legal counsel for the MPs and other politicians accused of serious crimes;
(iii) the serious criminals who allegedly operate under the protection of certain members of the previous regime, by the assurance that the same cover-ups and abuse of justice would continue; and
(iv) “Chief Judge” Abdulla Mohamed of the Criminal Court who is set to sit comfortably in the Criminal Court for life, ie. approximately 30 years until retirement at age 70.
The fact is that fully aware of the public discontent, and the fact that at least two of the 10 members of the JSC had expressed concern and publicly criticised JSC’s actions on Article 285 as unconstitutional and downright treacherous; 59 judges, including 11 judges who do not fall under the jurisdiction of Article 285, sat docilely at the orders of the JSC Chair, and took oath under lock and key.
Supervising the lifetime appointments was interim Supreme Court Justice who had earlier initiated a Ruling declaring himself the Chief Justice.
What went on in the minds of those taking oath, they would know? What fear led them to submit to such degradation, they would know?
To my mind, and to many others who witnessed the scene, it was ample proof there is neither independent judge nor independent judiciary.
Independence begins with an independent mind, and the freedom and power to think for oneself.
In my mind, more questions remain:
Where goes the common individual right to a free and fair trial?
Where goes building public confidence and trust in the judiciary?
Where goes the judges’ right to independence and non-interference?
Where goes the independent judiciary, the backbone of democracy?

Aishath Velezinee is a member of the Judicial Service Commission of the Maldives (JSC). She holds a Diploma in Journalism (IIMC, India; 1988), BA in Government; and in Women’s Studies (University of Queensland, Australia; 2000) and a Masters’ in Development Studies (Institute for Social Studies, Netherlands; 2004).

http://www.velezinee.aishath.com/content/why

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)

Comment: Reactive and obstructive politics threaten democracy in the Maldives

The International Day of Democracy (September 15) is a good day on which to take stock of democracy in the Maldives, a country that is well into its democratic awakening.

This is an opportunity to look at the successes achieved and the challenges that lie ahead – to look at the progress of democracy, with all of its opportunities and difficulties.

You can see the progress made as a nation in the rapid advancement of human rights and fundamental freedoms. A great deal of faith has been placed in democratic governance as a system, and in its transformative power for the country as a whole.

The space for free expression has been unlocked and is vibrant, with the role of the media growing. Two successful elections have been conducted, and the level of engagement by the people in the country’s development is increasing.

The forthcoming local elections offer another opportunity to show how democracy, development and human rights are interdependent and mutually reinforcing.

However, transition and change is always a painful process and there is still much to be done. Tensions have run high in recent months between the Executive, Majlis and Judiciary, the three pillars of democratic government. We still find ourselves in a political crisis that has made it very difficult to make progress on issues of pressing importance to the nation.

This has created a logjam of desperately needed legislation, including bills necessary for the functioning of the Maldives’ economy and government. The judiciary, institutions and independent commissions have sometimes come under remarkable pressure. There is a great need to build their institutional capacity to help them function as strong democratic institutions.

Why does the political crisis matter to ordinary Maldivians, who may just reduce their support and involvement in democracy for a while?

The best answer to this comes from UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who says “setbacks in democratic advancement are setbacks for development. Development is far more likely to take hold if people are given a genuine say in their own governance, and a chance to share in the fruits of progress.”

This view suggests that the progress of democracy, and the resolution of the political crisis, is in the best interest of every man, woman and child in the Maldives.

With the parties frequently at an impasse, the challenges can seem too great to overcome. But I do believe that solutions are readily available to the parties, should they commit themselves to working towards them.

Dialogue and cooperation on areas of common interest (and there are many of these) are the only ways to deal with the challenges facing the country. I hope that the governing and opposition coalitions can recommit themselves to political dialogue after the September recess is over, so as to find political solutions that allow government to function as it needs to; and ensure cooperation where it is needed within the Majlis, and between the Majlis and the Executive.

This does not mean that there has to be agreement on everything – democracy is about managing disagreement in a productive way. But I do believe there are high expectations for government and opposition to work together on finding solutions to problems that affect the country.

The United Nations has been supporting the parties in the last few weeks to try to find these solutions. The UN is committed to continuing to help Maldivians to safeguard and advance democracy, human rights and the rule of law in the country. But it has always been clear that these are Maldivian talks, on Maldivian problems, and we believe that a locally owned process offers the best way forward, with support from the international community when it is needed.

Maldivians and the parties that represent them face a decision point now. With the Maldives being one of the most promising young democracies in the region, there is undoubtedly a strong national commitment to democracy.

But should the political crisis continue as it is, many democratic gains could be lost. The choice therefore is to find a way forward and resolve political differences through dialogue and compromise to the greatest extent possible; or to continue reactive and obstructive politics that threaten the democratic project and prevent progress, even on issues where the parties might agree on normally.

It is my sincere wish that dialogue is chosen, trust is slowly but surely built, and Maldives continues to take the path towards a united, just and democratic nation.

Andrew Cox is the UN Resident Coordinator and UNDP Resident Representative in the Maldives

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)

Opposition “a little over enthusiastic” to return to power, says Nasheed

President Mohamed Nasheed has criticised the opposition for “being a little eager” to topple the government.

“They want a quick transfer of powers back to them,” Nasheed said, in an interview with the Asian Tribune.

“In that process they have become a little over enthusiastic. But I think they will come to their senses. We are here to stay here till the end of our term. There is absolutely no way that they could dislodge us.”

In the interview, Nasheed claimed that while leader of the main opposition Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party Ahmed Thasmeen Ali understood democracy, others in his party did not.

“I think it will take some more time for Thasmeen to get a good grip on his own party – in a sense to wash the DRP off and make it a clean party,” the AT reported Nasheed as saying.

DRP MP Ahmed Mahlouf said Nasheed was “trying to create problems” in his comments regarding Thasmeen’s grip on the party.

“It’s a stunt – he does a lot of stunts. It’s supposed to make supporters of the opposition uncomfortable by implying he is making deals with Thasmeen,” Mahlouf observed.

As for Nasheed’s suggestion that the opposition needed development, “I think we’re [already] a very responsible opposition. So far we haven’t done anything MDP didn’t do while they were in opposition. I don’t think we need support from the government: we have the capability and the educated people.”

Responding to the allegations of attempted overthrow, DRP MP Ahmed Mahlouf observed that “the only way we could change the government before the election would be a no confidence motion in parliament, and we would need 52 votes for that. I’m surprised to hear him accusing the opposition of trying to topple the government.”

The government has previously accused several opposition MPs of corruption and bribery, notably attempting to buy the votes of ruling Maldivian Democratic Party supporters.

Nasheed, in response to question from AT regarding the government’s recent controversial detention of minority opposition party leader Abdulla Yameen, leader of the People’s Alliance (PA), acknowledged that “the charges were not clear. It was cloudy at that moment.”

“When we see the whole thing is being derailed through corruption or bribery I will have to flex my muscles, and I will do it again,” he said. “But I will make sure we have our focus, that democracy is the goal.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Constitutional disaster averted as Parliament approves Supreme Court

The Maldives has appointed a new Supreme Court and narrowly averted constitutional catastrophe, after a series of parliamentary sessions today demonstrated remarkable and uncharacteristic cooperation between the two major parties.

Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz took the oath of office this evening in a ceremony at the President’s Office, and then administered the oath to five of the other appointed judges. The sixth, Muthasim Adnan, was out out of country.

Earlier this week a surge in political partisanship, caused by disagreement over the interim period set out in the Constitution and the locking of the Supreme Court by the military, had threatened to derail the process and leave the Maldives without its highest judicial authority.

On Tuesday morning parliament approved the amended judges bill 71 in favour, out of 73 members present. It was quickly ratified by President Nasheed shortly after lunchtime.

The new Judges Act enshrines judicial independence, governing ethical standards and rules on appointment and dismissal, as well as powers, responsibilities and practicalities such as salaries and allowances. The law also requires serving judges to meet a certain standards within seven years, or face dismissal.

“This law goes a long way to filling the constitutional void the country has been in since Sunday,” said the President’s Press Secretary, Mohamed Zuhair.

Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) Deputy Leader MP Ali Waheed meanwhile resigned from the from the parliamentary committee on independent state bodies, after voting against his party.

“Ali Waheed voted in the committee against the party’s decision. I am saddened because Ali Waheed resigned after breaking the three-line whip and I condemn his action,” DRP MP Ahmed Mahloof told newspaper Haveeru. Mahlouf has been nominated to replace Waheed on the committee.

A night of relief

That evening, after committee deliberations, the chamber unanimously approved the Supreme Court bench nominated by President Nasheed following rapid consultation with the Judicial Services Commission (JSC), who, down to just six members present, narrowly made quorum.

The new seven-member Supreme Court bench consists of: Former Chief Justice Abdullah Saeed, interim Supreme Court Judge Sheikh Abdullah Areef, Ahmed Muthasim Adnan, Counsellor General of Parliament Dr Ahmed Abdullah Didi, and High Court Judges Ali Hameed Mohamed and Mohamed Abdullah.

Parliament also approved the president’s original nomination for Chief Justice, Ahmed Faiz Hussain.

The President’s member on the Judicial Services Commission (JSC), Aishath Velezinee, described Faiz as “a well-respected man amongst the judges. I have never heard anybody question his independence or impartiality. He is a learned man and amongst all the politicking and hanky-panky going on, he has maintained his integrity.”

A senior government source said while the government was “not happy with every member of the [Supreme Court] bench, the President decided to bank a win. The mood is not one of jubilation, but of relief.”

Speaking to Minivan News after the vote, Velezinee said it was “a relief that we have passed through a moment which could have become really bad had the political parties not worked together and showed strength and goodwill towards the nation.”

“I hope that we will be able to reevaluate all the judges, including the reappointees. I haven’t read the documents yet, but I believe it is possible. However today is a day of relief as we begin the holy fasting month of Ramazan, after which we will get back to work improving the judiciary.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Comment: That evil democracy thing

A fool and his valuables are soon parted.

The general understanding of this adage is, of course, that a fool cannot truly appreciate the value of his prized possessions, and is easily swindled out of it.

Truer words have not been spoken, as evidenced in this article originally published on the website of a local NGO that calls itself the ‘Islamic Foundation of the Maldives’.

The article, titled ‘The Evils of Democracy’, is clearly inspired by the neo-conservative school of debate that absolves the writer from furnishing any intellectually honest evidence to support his claims, as long as he makes a decidedly passionate attack against a straw-man caricature – in this case, the Islamist’s skewed perception of democracy.

The post is riddled with such vacuous assertions as ‘Democracy is a system of infidelity..’ and ‘…openly hostile to the faith of monotheism’, but provides very little by means of actual evidence to justify these bizarre, sweeping statements.

It would be easy to dismiss the unfortunate article as mere farcical comedy, if it weren’t so highly irresponsible and dangerous.

As clueless as this NGO appears to be about the concept of democracy, there are actually ordinary, simple-minded folk who form judgments based solely upon information derived from such dubious and disreputable sources.

The author of the article betrays no evidence of an ability to distinguish between democracy, hedonism, capitalism and anarchy – all of which have been conveniently bracketed together as ‘evil democracy’. Nor does he suggest any alternatives to his rather bleak, dystopian portrayal of democracy.

The article mentions that, in democracies, the functions of the state are divided among three separate powers, but fails to mention why this is a bad thing.

As expected, it also criticises the existence of an opposition, and the din, commotion and confrontation this ensues. What it fails to mention is that this ‘noise’ is actually the sound of openly expressed opinions, and a public that actively participates in its own governance.

The often cacophonous noise of energetic democratic debate is much more soothing to the ear than the defeated, graveyard silence that pervades present day theocracies.

Democracy is definitely not a fool-proof system – nor is any other system, for that matter. That is because humans are flawed beings. We are all susceptible to greed, corruption and avarice.

But that is precisely why democracy is the best system we have today. Democracy has inherent checks and balances, and pays obeisance to concepts like Human Rights, accountability, public mandates and universal franchises on which the system is erected.

The tendency towards theocracy among neo-conservatives is baffling.

Would this NGO rather prefer the alternative, where every flood, famine and pestilence is conveniently pinned by authorities on the common man’s sins?

Would they rather Dhivehin lived under a system where the failures of an incompetent ruling clergy – the illiteracy, starvation and poverty that have become hallmarks of such societies – are routinely blamed on the common man’s defiance of God and lack of ideological purity?

When apologists for clergy-rule claim that democracy is an example of Human Law superseding ‘Divine Law’, will they also kindly point out to us a single example of a modern theocracy that is not a clear-cut case of a small group of humans dictating their ruthless will on others – only, this time with no accountability or room for redress?

It is an absolutely fatuous claim that clergy-controlled human-rights disasters like Saudi Arabia or Iran are somehow more sparkling examples of Islamic values than a democratic state like the Maldives.

The Maldives could have meekly followed the pied piper’s malevolent tunes, established a theocracy, and joined the league of failed states. Instead, Dhivehin have chosen to empower themselves with a modern democracy – of its own free will, without any foreign coercion.

The Muslims in this country, like the vast majority of Muslims around the world, have chosen a democratic system for the simple reason that IT WORKS. It has given its people a voice. It has prevented tyrants from abusing their authority with impunity. It has made their governments accountable to them.

The article finally comes to a head with a tired, worn-out, Chicken Little narrative about how democracy is a ‘conspiracy’ of the (entirely imaginary-) “diabolical forces of Jews and Christians” that, for unspecified reasons, have been compulsively harassing our fundamentalist friends since the dawn of time.

Even if we were to buy for a moment, for this NGO’s benefit, that democracy is a sinister plot devised by medieval Europeans (presumably in collaboration with ancient Greeks) to ‘divide’ and destabilise future Islamic societies they couldn’t possibly have foreseen, it is still a highly facetious remark.

For one thing, isn’t it rather absurd that the alleged diabolical agents of Judaism and Christianity have chosen to implement this ‘evil democracy’ thing in their own homelands – with much success to boot?

Modern democracies leave the clergy-states and dictatorships of the world biting the dust on every single human development index.

Today, the democratic Europeans and Americans are able to clothe and feed their people. Their elected governments have lifted millions out of poverty and starvation, and given them jobs and opportunities. They have the best health care systems in the world, the best schools, the top universities and made unparalleled scientific and cultural advances.

Far from being divided into tiny, squabbling factions, countries that were killing and bombing each other just a few decades ago, have opened up their borders to allow their people to travel and mingle freely.

Despite the diversity of their languages and cultures, their societies have stabilised enough to come together and form a common Parliament, implement a common currency, and adopt a common flag.

A spectacularly failed ‘plot to divide people’, by any measure.

Given this reality, the factions that continue to advocate a system where a limited group of people is allowed to oppress everyone else on the grounds of ideology can only be taken for those who seek to occupy the plush seats of authoritarian power. One suspects this is also the case for some of our own homegrown organisations.

May the Maldives beat back these retrograde forces, and continue to uphold the proud democratic freedoms that they have earned through sheer perseverance and sacrifices.

In the best democratic spirit, we must make Dhivehi Raajje a scintillating example of peace, democracy and harmony that so many other Muslim nations have failed to achieve.

Or else we’d end up like the fabled fool, too dense to appreciate the true worth of our invaluable freedoms, and caged once again in the all-too-familiar dark mental prisons of fear.

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)

Comment: The Evils of Democracy

This article was first published on the website of the NGO Islamic Foundation of the Maldives. Republished with permission.

Democracy is a system of infidelity which opposes the decree of the Creator and an evil that was born and raised in the lands of the West. Islam and democracy can not coexist in the religion of Allah, the Lord of all the worlds.

There is no such thing called ‘Islamic Democracy’ as some people put it because those people who adopt, implement or approve and agree to espouse democracy with its basic principles and fundamentals are openly hostile to the faith of monotheism.

When democracy is implanted in a Muslim society, it becomes a trial which sets apart the faithful Muslims from hypocrites and apostates. Those Muslims who take it upon themselves to fight and defend democracy without a religiously compelling reason hate to see Islam triumph over all other way of life. Most often they love to be in the company of the infidels, hypocrites or apostates and be praised by them while calling themselves ‘moderate Muslims’.

There is no such thing as ‘moderate Islam’ or ‘radical Islam’ in the revealed religion of the Almighty Allah. These are terms invented by the enemies of Islam to create divisions within the nation of Islam.

If someone deeply looks into democracy, he will realise its damaging aspects on any society. Democracy which emerged in the lands of the infidels demands the separation of powers: the executive, the legislative and the judiciary are to function as completely separate entities. Moreover, democracy aims to change the established Sharia and demands to keep separate the religion and the state, which is unacceptable in Islam. In a democracy, the secular majority wins and rules over the divine commandments. If an undesired group or party wins power through elections, then the election results are annulled and the constitution is amended to bar that party from competing in elections again. Such examples can be seen in Algeria, Turkey, Palestine and Kenya.

Democracy spurs sedition and discord by gathering people in parties and blocs, the consequences of which are hatred, fighting and bloodshed.

Huge sums of money are required for the working and functioning of political parties. In most democracies, the murky business of obtaining funds for political parties involves corruption, bribery and the selling of state secrets. The electoral campaigns are comprised of boasting, showing and presenting one’s deeds and withholding from others the deeds that they are due, as well as the use of falsehood and deceit in order to gain people’s votes.

Democracy makes the entire population equal, as there is no difference between a knowledgeable specialist and an ignorant person, an eminent scholar of Islamic theology and an illiterate drug addict, a monotheist and a polytheist, a believer and a hypocrite, an adulterer and a pious man, a child rapist and a holy person.

The proper functioning of democracy demands that most criminals have to be ‘rehabilitated’ and not punished for heinous crimes. The prisons in these countries include gyms and other sports or recreational facilities, swimming pools, libraries with internet services, the best food, medicals etc. To add more, there is a system of parole which allows the criminals to leave the ‘prison’ before the end of their sentences.

Democracy is a system that wastes the money and resources of the country in holding elections. These elections are filled with problems of intimidation, fraud, ballot rigging and other irregularities. No interim government is allowed to take over before fresh elections begin; instead the old leadership remains in power during and immediate aftermath of new elections, paving way for more social unrest.

Many times the opposition refuses to accept the election results with accusations of fraud, and calls on people to come out on streets to protest causing pandemonium and bloodshed. You will realize the deficiency of this democracy and its reprehensible failure to manage people’s affairs when those in the opposition constantly call for premature elections, along with its ensuing chaos and disorder.

Democracy leaves the door wide open for spoilers and all the undesired elements in the society to carry on with their work of spreading mischief in the land. Democracy also coexists with the oppressive regimes and the spoilers of social life with all its constituents: gay and lesbian rights movements, narcotics and other substance abuse groups spring up into action.

Therefore, homosexual marriages, selling of intoxicants and the right to renounce Islam have to be allowed under the guise of protecting human rights. Hence, a need for legislation to regulate all such cursed acts and behaviour which in turn produces deputies who pass on laws against those prescribed laws of Almighty God.

In a democracy, candidates jockey for positions of power with promises they do not keep after winning the election. The candidacy for elections is contrary to the guidance of Prophet Mohamed (PBUH) who said that Muslims do not confer the command of an emirate on he who asks for it.

Less privileged or deprived people have no chance of being on the electoral lists because becoming a candidate requires spending huge amounts of money in order to get people’s votes, which apparently go to the one who pays out more for bribery or propaganda work by the media.

So, in a democracy money can buy positions of power, and as such, the seats of the legislature or parliament mainly consist of people from the upper class or people backed by them. It is absolutely impossible to enact any laws urging their businesses to spend money in a way that might benefit the poor. The reality is the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

The most prominent people in a democracy are the politicians. The pious scholars of Islam, renowned scientists and men of knowledge have to follow the guidelines set by these politicians. Some of these so called politicians occupy seats in the cabinet, parliament and others work as party activists etc, but the truth is, they are ‘political prostitutes’. Most often they shift from one alliance to another or change parties and is devoid of any shame in behaving so for their worldly gains.

If you take a closer look at democracy, you will realise the deficiency and failure of that system to manage the people’s affairs and elect leaders capable of running the country in a way which benefits the masses. You will also undoubtedly ascertain the appropriateness of the Islamic way in generating the leaders and appointing rulers or emirs.

It is wrong to say that Muslim lands had been ruled by dictators or authoritarian rulers in the past centuries. The revealed Holy Scripture of the Muslims instructs the rulers to rule justly by obeying the commandments of Allah and with consultation (shura).

Throughout history the Muslims always had Consultative Assemblies comprised of learned men to advise those in power. The idea of dictatorship, authoritarianism, monarchy or royal dynasty rule began to creep into the Muslim lands when Muslim masses influenced by the West began to forget the proper method of statehood in Islam.

The Maldives has been ruled for quite a long period of time by authoritarian rulers with the power to enact draconian laws through the rubber stamp parliament. The Maldivian people were sick and tired of their ruling elites, their extravagant behaviour, nepotism and corruption etc.

The rampant moral degeneration, drunkenness and drug addiction made the Maldivian society plunge into chaos in the years between 2003-2008. The opportunity was ripe for the irreligious people who opposed the authoritarian regime to manipulate the situation by calling on the West to impose democracy on Maldives amid threats of economic sanctions.

There were many who thought that after democracy had been installed the problems created by the old authoritarian regime would disappear once and for all. However, in addition to those social problems that already remain, democracy has begun to create more problems in people’s lives by dividing the masses into parties or groups.

More often, rival factions compete for influence within the same party and today the so called political parties in Maldives are on the verge of bankruptcy or collapse and state funding is insufficient to keep them functioning. Soon the political parties in Maldives have to rely on foreign donations and grants of which the most likely consequence of this would be foreign control.

Money can buy power, so if the West decides to bring a certain opposition party into power, they increase funding for that particular party. In addition to all these problems, the party in power and the opposition parties are always at each other’s throats, as a result the ordinary people have to bear the brunt of the entire disharmony or disruptions within the community.

The so-called democrats in Maldives claim that they were the only ones who worked tirelessly to bring an end on nearly half a century of oppression. They say that these religious mullahs and bearded fundamentalists only acted like timid chickens and were unable put up a formidable resistance even to defend their ideals. They dare to say that these religion mongers kept hiding behind the backs of prodemocracy activists just to gain favours when everything happens to be over.

If so, then why for the past three decades did countless numbers of Muslim scholars – bearded men who offered five daily prayers and burqa clad women – continuously end up in jail or under house arrest? Where were the pro-democracy activists and human rights campaigners when breast feeding mothers were taken into police custody on the suspicion of trying to endanger religious harmony?

The so called prodemocracy activists only emerged during or after September 2003, when a violent drug addict was beaten to death by prison guards and the shooting incident there which killed a few other drug-related criminals.

It was so because the democrats became convinced that the authoritarian ruler faced pressure from the West to allow political parties to be formed in the Maldives.

The democrats might try to argue that they were in opposition since the early 1990’s. It is a wrong notion to say that they were campaigning for democracy then. The voices raised in those days were not for democracy but for reform or perhaps for change of power. Those voices disappeared into the wilderness because they were not backed by the West.

The spread of democracy in Muslim lands is a victory for diabolical forces of Jews and Christians who spend vast amounts of money and sacrifice much to keep Muslims divided.

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)

Comment: In love of democracy

Recent political developments not only confirm that democracy certainly is not ‘the only game in town’ – which is the simple test of consolidated democracy according to political scientists Alfred Stepan and Juan Linz – but also make one doubt whether there has been a completed democratic transition in the Maldives.

Two issues – the increasing inability of the government to generate new policies, and the de jure and de facto sharing and blurring of the powers of the executive with those of the legislature – put into question the transition to democracy.

‘Cash for votes’ in the parliament, the failures of the judiciary, reaction from government to predatory politics, the inaction of the civil society, the unreflective ‘political society’ polarized between two violent tribes, show that games from the authoritarian era can still be the favourites in town.

Failure of institutions VS human failure

Sri Lanka’s foreign minister, who is also trained in law, recently argued that the reasons for the current impasse lie in the institutional design of the 2008 constitution. President Nasheed agreed at a press conference on Wednesday. The unique features of presidentialism are also the institutional reasons for similar political deadlock as argued by others like Linz.

Yet institutionalism is not a sufficient reason – for either evil or good.

For, even perfect or just constitutions may not result in good outcomes or realisations.

As Nobel laureate Amartya Sen powerfully argues in his recent book The Idea of Justice the compliance of people’s behaviour with the demands of institutions is necessary for comprehensive good outcomes.

Wealthy parliamentarians can buy votes, minority parties can filibuster and disrupt parliament’s work, parliamentarians can block legislation and misuse constitutional provisions, authorities can arbitrarily arrest people and bypass due process, judges can be biased, executive can ignore court orders, and oversight bodies can be power-ridden.

To avoid, therefore, ‘justice in the world of fish’ where powerful predators devour the rest, both institutions and behavioral compliance, both processes and substance, are essential.

The persistence of predatory culture

Recent revelations show that predatory practices in the country are shockingly persistent. If what Larry Diamond, who has extensively written on political transitions, describes as ‘predatory society’ is an ideal type, the Maldives may not be far away from it. He describes, and I quote in length from Civic Communities and Predatory Societies:

In the predatory society, people do not get rich through productive activity and honest risk-taking. They get rich by manipulating power and privilege, by stealing from the state, exploiting the weak, and shirking the law.

Political actors in the predatory society will use any means and break any rules in the quest for power and wealth. Politicians in the predatory society bribe electoral officials, beat up opposition campaigners, and assassinate opposing candidates. Presidents silence criticism and eliminate their opponents by legal manipulation, arrest, or murder. Ministers worry first about the rents they can collect and only second about whether the equipment they are purchasing or the contract they are signing has any value for the public.

Legislators collect bribes to vote for bills.

Military officers order weapons on the basis of how large the kickback will be. Ordinary soldiers and policemen extort rather than defend the public. In the predatory society, the line between the police and the criminals is a thin one, and may not exist at all. In fact, in the predatory society, institutions are a façade. The police do not enforce the law.

Judges do not decide the law.

Customs officials do not inspect the goods. Manufacturers do not produce, bankers do not invest, borrowers do not repay, and contracts do not get enforced. Any actor with discretionary power is a rent-seeker. Every transaction is twisted to immediate advantage. Time horizons are extremely short because no one has any confidence in the collectivity and its future. This is pure opportunism: get what you can now. Government is not a public enterprise but a criminal conspiracy, and organized crime heavily penetrates politics and government.

Again, he says that “Corruption is the core phenomenon of the predatory state.”

The problem with such a society is that it cannot sustain democracy.

How to leave Las Vegas

President Nasheed’s government no doubt represents a victory against the forces of predation. However, some reasonable people have questioned whether his government’s recent reaction to predatory politics was legitimately conducted.

Of course, as value-pluralists like Isaiah Berlin remind us, we may take the risk of drastic action in desperate situations. So to give the government the benefit of the doubt, legitimacy aside, it is questionable if the government’s actions such as arrests and fomenting masses will lead to improvement.

Writing about political deadlocks, political scientist Scott Mainwaring has this to say:

“Common among populist presidents, such a pattern [i.e. mobilizing masses] easily leads to escalating mutual suspicions and hostilities between the president and the opposition.”

Moreover, by detaining otherwise predatory characters on questional grounds, we are giving them the benefit of victimhood and making them ever strong and popular. There is no greater tragedy to responsible opposition politics than having predatory characters as the most popular.

To my mind, therefore, there is no alternative to talks as an immediate measure, and strengthening institutions of horizontal accountability such as the Anti-Corruption Commission, the Audit Office, and the judiciary for long haul.

As a discursive yet instrumental tool, government must strengthen its public communication and pressure the parliament into compliance through public sphere.

As a permanent policy, it is time the government took for granted that it is a minority in the parliament, gave way for real negotiations rather than consultations, and got prepared for painful compromises.

Politics after all is the art of the possible.

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)

Comment: Maldives democracy must not go backward

The following article by Dr Hassan Saeed was originally published in UK newspaper The Guardian.

The British tourists who come to the Maldives’ beaches are unlikely to know about the Foreign Office’s warning this week to steer clear of large political gatherings.

But the country’s two-year-old government is in crisis. The resignation en masse of President Mohamed Nasheed’s cabinet at the end of June created a constitutional crisis, leaving the Maldives without a government for two weeks.

The president then unconstitutionally reappointed his cabinet without reference to parliament. Opposition MPs were arrested and only released after a prolonged appeal to the supreme court – after which the governing party called for demonstrations in an effort to make the judges change their mind.

Many Maldivians rejoiced in 2008 when the country held its first fully democratic presidential election following 30 years of suppression, torture and censorship under President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom. Nasheed came to power carrying the hopes of the nation with him that it could achieve full democracy.

This was followed a year ago by the first democratic elections to the parliament. I was a candidate in the first round of the presidential election, and the votes of my supporters decisively contributed to Nasheed’s majority in the second round.

In the same way that a democratic South Africa sent a signal to the world that Africa was changing, the Maldives sent a signal that the Muslim world was changing. Despite the difficulties democracy faces in places like Afghanistan, the Maldives were a powerful demonstration that such transition could be achieved peacefully. Most crucially this was delivered by Maldivians for Maldivians and not at the behest of American foreign policy.

That, too, sent an important message to many other Muslim countries debating their futures that peaceful campaigns to achieve democracy and human rights could work.

However, the Maldives is now again facing a serious challenge to our hard-won democracy less than two years after Nasheed came to power, because he did not win a parliamentary majority. The Maldives constitution establishes a clear separation of powers between president and parliament, but now Nasheed is attacking the right of parliament to effectively scrutinise the executive in a way that he would no doubt have similarly criticised his predecessor for.

The Maldives parliament should be allowed to do its job. It is debating important issues such as the foreign ownership of our international airport and seeking accountability from members of the president’s cabinet. However, we now see opposition MPs being arrested illegally, the army being deployed on the streets and unrest in the capital, Male’.

Nasheed is a former Amnesty International “prisoner of conscience” – yet he has threatened his own parliament and arrested MPs under laws that he himself opposed when he went through his own struggle.

The international community must now play a key role in supporting the right of the Maldives parliament to hold the executive to account. The European parliament has expressed concern about the situation and it has required the intervention of the Sri Lankan president, Mahinda Rajapakse, to bring the two sides together.

William Hague, the British foreign secretary, should intervene: the Maldives are a former British protectorate and last year over 100,000 Britons visited the islands, making Britain the country’s largest tourist market. Nasheed is very close to the Conservative party and was the international guest speaker at their conference last year. The Conservatives have provided him with support in the past, including training activists from his party.

In order to secure continued respect for the president’s role, Nasheed needs to demonstrate full respect for the Maldives’ other institutions. This is the only way to honour the struggle for democracy to which many believed the president had been totally committed.

Two years ago, some in the international community hailed Nasheed as the Mandela of the Maldives because of the way in which he forgave his predecessor, who had tortured and imprisoned him. The tragedy for the Maldives, and for the wider Muslim world, would be for him to take the country backwards to Gayoom’s time.

Dr Hassan Saeed is a former Attorney General and Presidential candidate. He is currently the leader of the opposition-aligned Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP).

Original link

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)