Tag: democracy

Islam and Democracy: Dr Hassan Saeed

“The myth that Islam and democracy are incompatible should be discarded for good. Now we should talk less about the ‘transition to democracy’ and start talking more about the daily trials and tribulations of democracy. The international community should avoid the mistakes they committed in the Maldives,” writes the President’s Special Advisor and head of the Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP) Dr Hassan Saeed.

The article is the latest in a series of pieces Dr Hassan has written for local newspaper Haveeru.

“If we take just five countries Egypt (population 81 million), Indonesia (239 million) Pakistan (174 million), Bangladesh (148 million), Turkey (73 million), we see nearly three-quarters of a billion people on the Earth living in countries that would call themselves democracies and the vast majority of whose population celebrate the Muslim faith. The Maldives along with an increasing number of other smaller countries are also now in this position too.

As a result, the myth that Islam and democracy are incompatible should be discarded for good. Now we should talk less about the ‘transition to democracy’ and start talking more about the daily trials and tribulations of democracy. In other words we should see our Islamic faith and our democracy as a mainstream part of our lives. In doing this we demonstrate to the whole world that the extremists and terrorists who claim to act on their faith, without any popular mandate from the population they claim to represent, to be a tiny minority mainly hiding out in small failed states.

Stalwarts of democracies around the world have an obligation to ensure that the emerging Muslim democracies succeed. They should use every possible means to build and strengthen institutions, invest heavily in voter education and development of civil society. These are key to any successful transformation to a democracy. Only then the East and West can start speaking a common language – ie. the language of democracy.”

Read more

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Comment: Maldives heading towards two-party MDP/PPM system

In many cases social scientists have observed that multiparty systems, especially in a presidential political system, have inevitably transformed into two-party contests. While many parties are usually present at birth of a nascent democracy, as it matures the contest for power between these parties slowly become a fight for survival ensuring that only the strongest parties survive.

The video below demonstrates how multiparty systems filter out smaller parties as the democracy matures:

We are not of the view that a two-party system is better than a multiparty system. In fact a multiparty political system allows for more voter choice. We however do think that a multiparty system is much less likely to occur in a presidential system compared to a parliamentary political system (which is perhaps why MDP was right in endorsing a parliamentary political system when it was put to referenda). Maldivian politics too, seems like it is moving towards a two party political system. While it might be too soon to jump to conclusions, here is how we think it might happen;

The reason why we think MDP and PPM are the most likely two parties to survive is because we believe that they are the two parties with strong and exclusive principles. MDP was the founding party of Maldivian Democracy. It has stood boldly for individual freedoms, social welfare and has continuously opposed the use of force in maintaining social order (at least in principle). PPM on the other hand has endorsed a system Maldivians saw for 30 years where the emphasis is on social order, even at the expense of individual freedoms.

DRP though part of Ithihad (coalition), we predict that them moving away from it. First of all they took the bold move of forcing Gayoom to leave the party, and since then tension between DRP and PPM have been unresolvable.

Most PPM supporters feel bitter about DRP and are less likely to work with them. We think that feeling is mutual from DRP supporters towards PPM as well. The only thing now keeping MDP and DRP separated seems to be their disagreement with Mohamed Nasheed. Even then, we think if the earliest elections move to a second round DRP is much more likely to endorse the MDP candidate over Gayoom.

Given that we feel that both MDP and DRP will maintain similar ideologies the question must be answered as to why we believe MDP will survive over DRP. This is because MDP by far has a larger support base than DRP; whose members seem to be still stuck on crossroads after Gayoom left the party to form PPM.

Secondly, MDP is the party that founded democracy, and has continued to mature with these same principles while DRP was a party used to support an autocrat who they seem to disagree with now. In terms of number and consistency, it’s easy to see why MDP will win over DRP. We also predict PPM to win over DRP in the first round of the next election.

Apart from the fact that PPM continues to win former DRP members, PPM also enjoys the potential support from AP and JP as part of the Ithihad. Furthermore, we think that the lack of an exclusive principle in DRP means that swing voters who decide to vote for democracy will vote for MDP, leaving DRP expecting to win votes only from their own members.

The Adhaalath Party (AP) seems to be losing a lot of support it used to enjoy from the highly religious community in Maldives. The recent scandals, as well as the contradictory statements regarding political activism by their leaders have casted doubt on their sincerity, credibility, and commitment to Islamic principles.

Though AP leadership is expected to campaign with PPM in the second round of the upcoming elections, overtime the votes of AP members are most likely to transfer to a party which they feel, can accommodate a favorable Islamic environment.

If the Jumhooree Party (JP) was to support a principle; it would be in favor of liberalised markets and maximum commercial freedom. They seem to support least possible taxation and most possible freedoms in terms on investment and commerce. We argue that the party is likely to make coalition with a party that agrees to maintain the trade liberalisation ideology. We also would like to point out that such a coalition makes perfect sense for PPM since there seems to be no conflict of interest in adhering to the principles of JP.

Overall, our conclusion is that Maldives is likely to move towards a two-party political system as the political history matures. Perhaps parties like AP or JP might not completely die out, but it can be said with relative certainty that the main battles for presidency is to most likely happen between MDP and PPM.

This article first appeared on the Freethinker Maldives blog. Republished with permission.

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: He is not my President

There are few individuals who have lost as much goodwill and respect of democrats in as little time as Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan Manik.

Among them was his own brother Naushad Waheed Hassan, the former Deputy High Commissioner of the Maldives to the UK, who handed in his resignation letter following the February 7 coup d’état. In a statement, he said “…it is with a heavy heart that I have to say that this is indeed an illegitimate government and I cannot be party to it”.

Maldives Ambassador to the United Nations, Abdul Ghafoor Mohamed, resigned live on air on Al Jazeera, citing “moral and ethical concerns” surrounding the transfer of power. Dr Farahanaz Faizal, the Maldivian High Commissioner to the UK, also tendered her resignation, saying: “They robbed the people of the vote and when I saw the brutality of the police… that was the final straw”.

Over 100 days later, tens of thousands continue to march in protest and express contempt for the man who undid the country’s first democracy.

Coercion

It is hardly a matter of debate that what  transpired on February 7-8, 2012 was a coup d’état.

Indeed, the then Vice President Mohamed Waheed himself claims to have been watching the events unfold on national television as the country descended into chaos.

TV stations were played harrowing videos of police senselessly beating MDP leaders and supporters unconscious on the streets. We saw dramatic footage of police and military personnel, led by Dr Waheed’s brother, storming into and taking over the headquarters of the state broadcaster, as well as ransacking and destroying the MDP party campus.

Online videos show a former military colonel Mohamed Nazim (later appointed Defence Minister), demanding an ‘unconditional resignation’ from the first democratically elected President in the nation’s history.

An amateur video clip showed the alleged coup leaders holed up in the police headquarters along with a former policeman Abdulla Riyaz (who has since been appointed Commissioner of Police) and current Deputy Commissioner Hussain Waheed (who had earlier denied his presence at the scene), showed them hugging and celebrating. Gasim Ibrahim, the businessman leader of Jumhooree Party, was seen remarking that he was relieved it was over “without involving a military takeover”.

PPM Vice President Umar Naseer – a man renowned for speaking exactly more words than necessary – has publicly revealed the existence of a ‘command centre’ and openly boasted at a party gathering that the President’s life was on the line had he not resigned.

Indeed, Australian television SBS Dateline has aired devastating audio clips of an agitated President Nasheed pleading for the safety of his family in return for his resignation. In yet another leaked audio clip, Waheed’s own advisor, DQP leader Dr Hassan Saeed – has termed it a “unique coup”.

The brazen violence against MDP leaders by the regime forces, the arrest warrants issued against Nasheed less than a day of his ouster, and the subsequently leaked audio and video clips leaves no room for doubt that the first democratically elected President of the Maldives was made to resign under duress – in other words, an unambiguous, clear-cut case of a coup d’état.

There is simply no intellectually honest argument that can be made against this.

What remains to be seen is whether the perpetrators of the coup will face justice for their treason, and whether Maldivians will ever get to learn the finer details of the plot that overthrew their first democratically elected government – of how it was conceived, financed and executed.

Uncovering the facts

Whereas governments like India have spectacularly miscalculated their response to the coup d’état, the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG) and EU have been more forthright about their demands from the newly installed regime – early elections, and an independent inquiry.

In what is essentially Napolean hiring a council of pigs to investigate the affairs at the Farm, Waheed put together a three-member ‘independent’ inquiry commission, two of whom served as Cabinet ministers in Gayoom’s former regime, to “investigate” the coup d’etat.

The Commission for National Inquiry (CNI) came under heavy fire from CMAG, which gave the government four weeks to reconstitute the panel to include international experts and a representative acceptable to the MDP, or face the consequences.

A lot of tantrums were thrown in retaliation, with prominent figures allied with the regime ridiculing the Commonwealth body, going so far as to accuse them of accepting bribes. One MP even introduced a bill in Parliament to withdraw from the Commonwealth.

Another MP, Riyaz Rasheed, offered his enlightened opinion that the UK was not, in fact, a democracy, and proceeded to mock the British Queen as “physically challenged” in a bizarre diatribe that would have earned most people a long vacation in a padded room.

Despite the alternating complaints and swagger, the regime finally relented with just a day left on the deadline and agreed to have a Commonwealth approved co-chair on the Inquiry Commission, and also gave an assurance to CMAG that a member nominated by President Nasheed would be appointed.

However, no sooner did the Commonwealth Special Envoy Sir Don McKinnon board his flight than the regime’s obstructive tactics were back in full force.

The regime rejected all nine names proposed by President Nasheed. Instead, Waheed’s Attorney General Azima Shukoor laid out the “conditions” that needed to be met by the nominees, including the demand that they should not have served in a political position in the past two years, and must not have taken a public position on a matter that has been at the centre and forefront of the national debate for over a 100 days.

And if Nasheed doesn’t find such a candidate in less than two weeks, the regime vows to unilaterally appoint a lawyer to fill the spot.

Rewinding the clock

With the delaying tactics in place, the regime has embarked on a series of steps to try and legitimise the power grab.

The government has already hired London-based PR firm Ruder Finn – for an assignment allegedly worth about US$300,000 – to rebuild their image in major Western countries.

Former Attorney General Dr Hassan Saeed, once employed by Gayoom as the ‘reformist’ mask on the his brutal dictatorship, seems destined to forever keep applying lipstick to hideous pigs.

As Waheed’s ‘advisor’, he has been penning a series of articles in the local media, talking about ideals of democracy and state building – a rather weak and laboured point, coming from someone who continues to play lackey to an unrepentant, brutal dictator who has never faced justice for his three decade-long crimes.

The State TV channel, forcibly renamed ‘TVM’ by the vandals on February 7, continues to be known by its Gayoom-era moniker. Gayoom’s children and close associates have all found high ranking positions in the newly formed regime, which Waheed insists is a “continuation” of the former government.

Every major MDP policy – from decentralisation to regional development – has been either reversed or suspended. Boards have been reconstituted, organizations have been abolished, and even the ministries have been reshuffled to closely resemble their Gayoom-era counterparts.

Meanwhile, in another throwback to the despotic Gayoom era, the Waheed regime has engaged in systematically dismantling all avenues of dissent against his government using a heavy handed campaign of intimidation.

Following President Nasheed’s first public appearance following on the coup d’état on February 8, a massive spontaneous protest was crushed with unprecedented police brutality that drew condemnation from international Human Rights organizations like Amnesty International, as well as the local Police Integrity Commission. The regime-appointed Police Commissioner has announced that he will not investigate the mindless violence perpetrated by the police of those days.

After weeks of demonstrations calling for early elections showed no signs of abating, the regime sent in a cavalcade of military and police vehicles to forcibly evacuate and dismantle the protest site, while also rather conveniently recovering boxes of illegal alcohol once the media was out of sight.

In recent days, the regime has indicated its intention to yet again take over the protesters’ new camp, and also usurp the land from the MDP controlled Male’ City Council.

While he has stalled and delayed elections in any way he could, Waheed has been agile and and moved fast to reward the police service with a record number of promotions and has generously increased their headcount by a further 200 staff. He has also paid out generous lump sum awards for years of “pending” allowances to the military forces, in a move that couldn’t hurt his popularity among the uniformed forces.

Waheed has also appeared to be shoring up his Islamist support, sharing a podium with far right Islamist politicians and businessmen, rallying the ‘mujahideen’ behind him in a fiery jihadi speech delivered on February 24.

Waheed’s strategy of using tried and tested Gayoom formula of employing twin pillars of religious paranoia and military force to prop up the regime is increasingly evident.

It is starkly clear that the present regime threatens to rewind the clock back by a decade, undo every progress the country has made since the democratic struggle began long years ago, and return the country back to the hands of the same tyrant whose clutches we had barely escaped.

Every day that an election is delayed is yet another day that the old monster of despotism spreads its tentacles wider.

If the international community fails to make a firm stand to resuscitate the Maldives’ rapidly failing democracy, and ensure justice for the victims, then it will turn out to be an even bigger body blow to Maldivian democrats’ diminishing hopes than Waheed’s betrayal ever was.

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: Breaking the rules of democracy

Given the events of the past three years it is fair to say that we are still a democracy in principle rather than in practice. The existing authoritarian and undemocratic enclaves prevalent within our socio-political system support this argument. By authoritarian enclaves I refer to the prevalent corruption, the lack of respect for the constitution and the rule of law, and the continuous stifling of our civil and political rights by the so-called political fanatics, ‘vanguards’ of democracy and religious scholars in the Maldives.

It is true, old habits die hard. After 30 years of repression and authoritarian rule we still continue to focus on personalities; our institutions are not independent of specific personalities and as a society we continue to limit each other’s political freedoms. We need to liberate ourselves from our traditional, personalised patronage politics. We need to liberate ourselves from the old habits.

To be democratic we need to understand that the rule of law precedes everything; civil liberties such as freedom of expression should be exercised with responsibility and as a society we need to make informed and responsible decisions in selecting and electing those who represent our voice.

President Waheed was right when he said on Hardtalk that “we have come to this point because we have not respected our constitution. We have not respected the rule of law. The last thing I want to do is to circumvent our constitution”. So when and where have we circumvented our constitution? Without going into the details of Gayyoom’s 30 year authoritarian regime, if we begin with the dawn of our democracy following the election of Mohamed Nasheed, when and where have the laws of the land been flouted? Where have we failed at democracy?

The rule of law was flouted when the Supreme Court was locked down under the order of Nasheed. The rule of law was flouted when a senior judge was ‘judgenapped’ and arrested. We failed at democracy when projects or investment opportunities were given to political party aides and cronies without declaration of ‘conflict of interest’ or without a fair bidding process. We failed at democracy as the number of family ties increased within the top brass of the state institutions. We failed at democracy when we failed to listen to public protests for 22 consecutive days, regardless of whether they were 200 people, a minority, or 100,000 people.

During Nasheed’s regime, the opposition too failed at democracy because they refused to accept the rules of the game of democracy. Over the past couple of years the opposition have been hell bent on creating parliamentary deadlocks which delayed the enactment of key legislations; used religious fervor to rile up anti-MDP sentiments and backed questionable characters to achieve their political goals. Democracy is not the only game in town if the losers of an election do not accept their defeat. If we see democracy under the axiom of a game, it will only continue to work if the losers in the game want to play/try again within the same institutional framework under which they lost.

Our constitutional sins reached a new level on February 7, 2012. The constitution of our country was punched in the face when our democratically elected leader was ousted in a coup. If Nasheed was such a failure, his removal should have been by the rule of law, by the people and by the ballot. Whether by the fate of circumstances, by Nasheed’s own making or by advanced planning the removal of an elected President by force, has set a very dangerous precedent here and in my opinion this constitutional sin is worse than anything Nasheed ever did.

I am willing to accept that politicians from all sides have failed to uphold the rule of law in the past, move forward and draw lessons from it. So I ask President Waheed, since he holds the reigns now, what is his plan to uphold and maintain the rule of law? The current government’s commitment to democracy will continue to be tested and judged by the disgruntled opposition until the next election. Until then I hope our fragile democracy will continue to withstand the pressures and shocks without abandoning the electoral process ever again. The lesson for all of us is, never again should the constitution and rule of law be abandoned under the guise of upholding democracy.

I am not really concerned about ‘who’ is in power as long as the person in power is there through legitimate means and is concerned about implementing positive change. We have intellectuals on both sides of the political spectrum. Our infant democracy was born by the work of several people. For every protester there was an intelligent and energetic policymaker creating the rules of the game. For instance, Nasheed is a great orator and a true torch bearer for democracy. While Nasheed carried the torch, there were policy makers behind the table such as Dr Ahmed Shaheed, Dr Hassan Saeed, and Dr Waheed who rigorously used other channels to bring democracy to our country. All of them should be credited for their contributions regardless of which side of the table they are on.

Some of our MP’s display appalling behavior, ignorance and a lack of professionalism. Some are borderline criminals. When the next election confronts us, we as the electorate have a moral responsibility to select and elect leaders who are competent, crime-free and open-minded.

One of the fundamental components of democracy is freedom of expression, because without it, free elections mean nothing. We do enjoy ‘freedom of expression’ in the Maldives but without any responsibility. Freedom of expression is an abused freedom in the Maldives because religious extremists use it to spread their religious fatwa’s, war-mongerers use it to spread their hate, politicians use it to create division and the media uses it to spread half-truths. Where is our sense of social responsibility when we exercise freedom of expression?

We need to remember that before the 7th of February there were thousands of people who opposed MDP and exercised their fundamental right to criticise. The coup was not undertaken by the opposition supporters, therefore, why should they be labelled as ‘baghees’ (traitors)? The level of cyber bullying evident on social media towards anyone associated with the current government is one example where freedom of opinion is violated. The number of people that tell me that they are afraid to show their support to the parties they supported prior to 7th February due to fear of being labelled as ‘baghee’ is proof enough that freedom of opinion and expression is no longer a given. Without proper freedom of thought, opinion and association we will never be able to safeguard the integrity of our elections.

As a society that aspires to be democratic we all have a social responsibility to respect the rule of law, exercise our freedoms with responsibility and empower politicians for the right reasons. We are the drivers of change and politicians are only the mediators we select to implement the change we want.

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)

“Democracy must be restored in the Maldives,” Nasheed tells US media

Former President Mohamed Nasheed’s promotional tour of the US media for the Island President continued over the weekend, including interviews with the Washington Post, Salon, and the Huffington Post, among others.

The interviews follow Nasheed’s appearance last week on the Late Show with David Letterman, and address to Colombia University. The recent political instability in the Maldives has been as much a topic in many of the interviews as the wider environmental threat highlighted in the Island President, and the media has been quick to draw parallels.

The first half of the film gives a political backdrop to Nasheed’s own political rise – and imprisonment.

“It is very important that democracy be restored in the Maldives, and we hope that friendly governments understand the necessity and the need for it,” Nasheed said, in a Q&A with Salon. “As we see it now, I’m afraid the government there is going to all sorts of places. Certainly it’s not going democratically, and we need to bring it back.”

Asked by Salon if he believed Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan’s government would pursue tackling climate change to the same degree, Nasheed said “They can’t. You must have a high moral authority to address climate change. Every time you start speaking, you know, you can’t be answering back to the skeletons in your own closet. So it’s not going to be possible for them to articulate in the same manner as a democratic government. I don’t see it happening.”

There was, Nasheed told the magazine, no policies or political ideology behind Gayoom and the former opposition coalition.

“[The] ideology is xenophobia and racism. All the rhetoric against Israel and the West, calling everyone a heathen. It’s really narrow-minded and intolerant and nationalistic. This is an island mentality as well, but it’s possible to change that. It’s not the people who have that mentality but the ruling elite, who want to suppress the people through that narrative, that rhetoric,” Nasheed explained.

Nasheed also met with the US State Department. Recounting the meeting to the Washington Post, Nasheed said: “the whole issue centred around the restoration of democracy in the Maldives, and how it was very important to get the country back on track, and how the US government may assist in doing that.”

“We were encouraged that the US government willing to listen and see how they may be of assistance to democratic progress in the Maldives,” Nasheed said, adding that the State Department had shown a willingness to reassess the situation as new information emerged.

“The US government was of the view that elections were necessary – they had reservations in the past, but main focus of conversation was that whatever their viewpoint in the past, they were willing to assess situation on the ground as it is now.”

Gayoom denies allegations

Former president Maumoon Abdul Gayyoom has meanwhile brushed off the allegations made by his successor regarding his involvement in the coup.

Gayyoom in a press statement released yesterday after Nasheed had made remarks to the US media, stated that he had not attempted nor took part in any type of attempts to unlawfully topple the government of Nasheed.

However he acknowledged that his party, the Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM), had participated with thousands of people who raised concerns over Nasheed’s unlawful and unconstitutional actions and his efforts to distance the Maldivian people from their Islamic faith.

“For that purpose, PPM had participated in the protests that were organised by several political parties and NGOs. That [protesting] is a legal and a democratic right for the people to ensure accountability of the president and senior officials of his government. It is also an obligation on the citizens as well,” Gayoom claimed..

Gayoom also expressed his confidence that the events that unfolded on February 7 was not a coup d’état: “Therefore I can confidently say that the allegations that Nasheed is making, regarding the transfer of power that took place on February 7 was a coup d’état or a revolution, and that I was involved in it, are completely absurd.”

Gayoom issued the press statement in particular response to Nasheed’s appearance on Letterman.

During the show, Nasheed said Dr Waheed’s regime, is the “old dictatorship that we voted out of office”.

“Gayyoom is back in the country, his children are in cabinet, he is in power. Dr Waheed is just a facade.” Nasheed said.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Maldives will disappear from climate stage without democracy: Nasheed

As news of the Maldives’ so-called coup d’état grows stale on the international palate, the release of documentary film ‘The Island President’ in New York last week has refreshed the Maldives’ image as a key victim of rising seas. It has also renewed former president Mohamed Nasheed’s image as a climate change activist, who is now pushing democracy as a core ingredient to the climate change movement.

‘The Island President’, produced by Richard Berg and directed by Jon Shenk, chronicles Nasheed’s tumultuous rise to power under former president Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, and his fight against global warming. Nasheed was ousted from the presidency last month in a “seriously staged coup” engineered by Gayoom, who he claims has effectively returned to power.

“What I would like to do initially is have democracy back in the Maldives,” Nasheed informed an audience of approximately 200 climate change academics, activists and journalists at Columbia University’s Low Library in New York City on Thursday evening. He stressed that all change is people-based.

“Even UN legislation happens because the people want it, and have the ability to voice their concerns,” he said.

Jointly addressing the topic of climate legislation and the US’ rapid recognition of the Maldives’ new government, Nasheed also encouraged the public to “ask bigger countries not to be so hasty in always defending the status quo.”

Adding that the Maldives’ current government has not addressed climate change – “they only just came to power” – Nasheed expressed concern that without a strong platform on the issue the Maldives would disappear from international awareness.

Climate change has become a pressing item on many diplomatic agendas. Yet few have clearly stated that the matter can only be addressed in a democratic environment.

“I think there is widespread understanding of the close linkage between climate change and politics,” wrote the Andrew Sabin Professor of Professional Practice and Director of Columbia’s Center for Climate Change Law, Michael B Gerrard, in an email to Minivan News. “However, in few places other than the Maldives is there such a close linkage between climate change and democracy itself.”

Gerrard organised and moderated Thursday’s event.

During his tour in the US, Nasheed has claimed that talking about climate change is a matter of human rights – “the minute you start talking about it people start pulling skeletons out of your closet.”

The People’s Politics

“Politicians only do things they are told by the people. I am afraid American’s don’t tell enough.”

Nasheed challenged his audience to make the environment a key platform in the US’s current presidential campaign. “Now, you cannot win an election in Germany without having proper environmental legislation and preparation. I can’t see why it can’t be like that here. It’s really up to the people in the US.”

Gerrard separately stated that American public opinion on climate change has fluctuated amidst economic instability and contentious scientific reports. “There is little prospect for aggressive US action on climate change until the pendulum of public opinion swings back. With an improving economy and growing evidence of the perils of climate change, the political situation may be improving, but things are still in flux,” he wrote.

Meanwhile, several audience members rose to Nasheed’s challenge and asked for further specifics on “the average person’s” role.

“I think we are all average, so all of us should be advocating,” he told one individual, expressing firm belief in street demonstrations and community action.

While channeling the spirits of revolution and humanity sat well with many, other audience members retorted with America’s more prevalent campaign season sentiment – cynicism.

Citing her own allegedly futile efforts to reach state politicians through demonstrations and correspondence, one frustrated activist asked for new approaches. “I don’t know. I have no new advice,” Nasheed admitted. “So, it’s bodies in the streets, basically?” the woman asked, deflated. “I don’t think there is any other, easier way,” he explained, reiterating his support of public demonstrations and community action.

Extreme measures and new economics

If world powers do not reach a legally binding agreement on carbon emissions in the next seven years then the next Maldivian generation will have little country to claim, Nasheed believes.

Reminding the audience that approximately 40 percent of the world population currently lives within 100 kilometres of a coastline, he added, “It’s an issue for all countries, rich or poor, big or small.” He further urged developing countries such as India and China to move away from the “not my fault” discourse that surrounded the Durban talks in December 2011.

While island states such as Kiribisi are reportedly weighing options for relocation, such as the construction of floating islands, Nasheed observed, “You can always relocate a person, but to relocate a culture and a civilisation, is impossible.” Quoting a Maldivian grandmother for whom her place was synonymous with her self, he believed “a vast majority of people [in the Maldives] will stay.”

Shifting the dialogue from sentimental to proactive, Nasheed admitted that constructing islands and relocating communities struck him as “extreme…but we must be thinking about extreme ideas.”

His position on economics was similarly revolutionary.

“The existing economics in which air is a free good is false,” he explained in answer to a question about market-based mechanisms and the Kyoto Protocol. “We need a new economics that will address the issue.”

Focusing on adaptation, Nasheed recommended reversing the language of climate change diplomacy. Stating his feeling that “the UN process exists simply for the sake of process,” he suggested asking countries to take new actions on renewable energy rather than to cut back on existing energy use. “I believe we may be able to arrive at the same destination with renewable energy,” he said.

“So, do it!”

The current political situation in the Maldives was a central talking point with the audience. Questions addressed the arrest of Judge Abdullah Mohamed, the international community’s response to the new government, and even Nasheed’s coping techniques.

One audience member said she had seen the Island President film and was dubious about Nasheed’s genuine nature – suggesting that he was enjoying the celebrity –  but said his manner during the discussion and response to questions at Colobmia was reassuring of his uniquely genuine interest and manner.

Overriding the Gerrard’s cut-off of queued audience members at five minutes before the scheduled end of the discussion, Nasheed found himself face to face with a young woman who had “a question or suggestion”—that he and his team make their views more accessible to the climate change-curious public by expanding their use of social media. Taking in her observation, Nasheed tipped his head and affirmed that it was possible.

“So, do it!” she said.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Democracy not a one-off event: Dr Hassan Saeed

A few months ago when my friend decided to buy an air-conditioning unit for his house, he was overwhelmed by the number of people who were ready to offer him advice on the best unit to buy but eventually he made his choice, writes the President’s Special Advisor, Dr Hassan Saeed, for Haveeru.

The great day came when the engineer installed it. My friend was a bit puzzled that he left without even turning it on but he was so looking forward to enjoying the cool air that he put it to the back of his mind. And then the problems started….

It stopped working properly and became less and less effective as days passed. When my friend rang the company he bought the AC from, he could never get hold of anyone or if he did manage to speak to someone they didn’t seem interested in his problems-let alone in helping him fix them.

Eventually his AC almost ground to a halt, making alarming noises and was clearly becoming dangerous and at that point the company did start to take some notice and rushed round to his house. And you know what really annoyed him? The company acted as though this was the first that they had heard of the problem…

You’ll recognise this story because in reality, of course, it is describing the Maldives, the international community and our democratic journey of the last three years.

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)

The sea rises and democracy falls in the Maldives: Independent

Until four years ago, visitors to the Maldives were unwittingly supporting a nasty dictatorship where beatings and torture were routine, writes Joan Smith for the Independent.

“Then, in autumn 2008, the dictator, Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, was turfed out in the country’s first democratic elections. The new president was my friend Mohamed Nasheed, a former political prisoner who soon began making a name for himself on the international stage.

I first got to know Anni, as he’s known, around 10 years ago. I met him in London and found him remarkably resilient for someone who had spent six years in jail, 18 months of it in solitary confinement. He is passionate about human rights, with a dry sense of humour and an apparently endless store of patience which convinced him that his Maldivian Democratic Party would one day triumph over the regime.

When he became president, Anni quickly established himself as an environmental campaigner, achieving almost rock-star status. He forced the world to recognise that the archipelago, which is only two metres above sea level, faces extinction because of global warming. His government set up a health system, pensions and the country’s first university. It struggled to modernise the judiciary, attracting criticism for some of its actions, but promoted the country as a functioning Muslim democracy. Last year, David Cameron even described Anni as his new best friend. But less than two months ago, Anni was deposed in an alleged coup.

Anni says he was forced at gunpoint to resign on television by military officers loyal to the old regime. He was placed under house arrest and the vice-president, Waheed Hassan, took over. As soon as Anni was released, he led a protest march in the capital, Male, where he was beaten up along with his party’s interim chair, Moosa Manik. According to Amnesty International, another protest march earlier this month was violently broken up by the police, who used batons and pepper spray.

Outside the Maldives, Anni’s friends have watched events unfold with horror. To begin with, the abrupt change of government didn’t receive as much attention as it deserved because it was stage-managed to look as though Anni had resigned of his own will. But a campaign to restore democracy is gathering pace: the EU has expressed concern about political unrest and the Commonwealth has called for early elections.

At the London premiere on Thursday, I was torn between enjoyment and anxiety, pleased to see Anni on the screen but worried about his safety and that of democracy campaigners in the Maldives. Earlier this month, Anni wrote an impassioned article and I don’t think I can do better than give him the final word: “The world has a duty not to sit passively by as the flame of democracy – for which Maldivians have fought so long – is snuffed out in our islands once again.”

Full story

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)