“It’s customary to begin articles about the Maldives with phrase such as “It may look like an island paradise, but …” After two years in which the country has experienced a violent coup and attempts to throw the first democratically elected president in jail, maybe it is time we dropped any notion of the Maldives as a utopia,” writes Eric Randolph for the UAE newspaper The National.
“In recent days, the country’s elite have once again displayed their cynical disregard for democracy, with the Supreme Court indefinitely postponing the second round of the presidential election.
The official reason for that postponement is that the court is investigating claims of election irregularities in the first round made by one of the losing candidates, even though the vote was given a clean bill of health by international observers.
One doesn’t have to dig too deep to find signs that the real reason for the delay is that powerful business and political interests want to keep Mohamed Nasheed from assuming the presidency.”
This is a brief sketch of how over a period of 10 years, one set of background assumptions has been replaced by that of another.
How that of system building & primacy of democracy has been replaced by seizure of power by any means necessary and scorched earth tactics, regardless of impact on democratic institutions.
How reverence for democracy has been replaced by deceptive cynicism and manipulation.
How an old idea about an objectified, malleable subject has returned with a vengeance in a new form to replace active, vigilant, citizenry.
These combine together to create two different sets of values that are in conflict for supremacy. There are many different versions of this story. This is the version I find most compelling and convincing.
At times these sets have been shared across the political spectrum by various degrees, but as I write, the contrast could not be any sharper. A few days ago, a JP coalition partner speaking at the H.Kunooz podium hailed the Supreme Court’s decision to suspend elections, until they complete their inquiry into the process, as progress for democracy.
If we take this event as an isolated instance, it may seem to an outside observer that we should not be worried about a fair judicial inquiry in to the process. This was perhaps the United States’ stance, when it declared that all should respect the “judicial process”.
But we cannot isolate that instance from everything else that has happened, and is happening. It is hard to accept for us that Supreme Court has accepted a case with outrageous and ridiculous claims in good faith. The Supreme Court is not a wholly independent institution. It too has a history, a memory, and power relations, that it cannot extricate itself from. The same goes for every other democratic institution in the country.
We must also learn to recognise the fundamental shifts that have taken place – of behaviours, attitudes and values, driven by ideology – to a position where previous agents of democracy now wish to dismantle the entire framework. We must understand how things came to be. I write this because there are choices to be made, choices that will shape our future to come.
The last decade
Our story begins 10 years ago on a sunny September day like this, when we struck by the news of murder and killing in Maafushi Prison installation. The shock was followed by rioting and civil unrest in Male, as disenfranchised citizens took to the streets to torch & burn. In retrospect, this may be hard to understand, but if you were there, born in that system, felt the weight of oppression, of a present without a future, of walled enclosed horizons, it was hardly a matter of choice. This was perhaps not the beginning of voices calling for democracy, but provided the impetus for action, and represents a turning point in our history.
That September day led to the formation of the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) in Sri Lanka, and their campaign to bring democracy to the Maldives. By June of 2004, just seven months into the MDP’s campaign, President Gayoom had shuffled his cabinet, brought in some fresh blood – known then as New Maldives (Hassan Saeed, Jameel and Ahmed Shaheed) – and then went on TV to give a very brief statement. He claimed “… [I] too were a reformer”, followed by a list of things he wished to change.
What followed was a long drawn-out process. Under constant pressure from the MDP, Gayoom conceded on a number of issues and new democratic spaces opened — a Special Constitutional Majlis was assembled for drafting a new constitution, political parties were allowed to operate, and for the first time in our history a free press was allowed.
This process of democratization has been described, following Huntington, as “transplacement” – a process of negotiation between actors in the establishment and those challenging that establishment. But for our purposes, I think it is important to understand the motivations and specific strategies employed by Gayoom’s regime to ward off the MDP’s threat of destabilizing the autocratic regime.
Gayoom bolstered the police with a new division called Special Operations to counter the threat of street protests. For the Majlis and Special Majlis, he had the advantage of using his network of loyalists across the atolls to elect the candidates he wanted. All in all, his overall strategy was to absorb demands made by citizens, make cosmetic changes and render them passive long enough for him to survive – known in Gramscian terms as “transformism”. Interestingly, the group called New Maldives would move on to other activities that would closely resemble Gramscian tactics, like recruiting intellectuals to their cohort.
Gayoom campaign poster from 2008 / image from flickr — sujaa
The motivations for the Gayoom programme seem to have been to make as minimal changes as necessary, survive as long as possible, re-invent his image as father of democracy, and win the presidential slot. Underlying these is a fundamental shift in behaviour and attitude towards politics. Whereas pre-2003 Gayoom did not need to reinforce and bolster his democratic credentials (brute force did the work of convincing), now he had to refer back to democratic values and associate himself with it, however minimal his interpretation of democracy was.
Prior to 2003, his ideological platform was built on a strong cohesive, homogeneous version of religious nationalism – of harmony and unity – which left little room for diversity of opinion. Now he had to concede that freedom of speech was fundamental to the creation of a modern state.
In effect, Gayoom was responding to a set of assumptions he had — that Maldivians wanted a democratic state, that democratic values were on the ascendancy and gaining primacy, and that his autocratic regime was no longer sustainable in its current form because his ideological notions of nation and religion (Islamo-Nationalism hinged on his version of modernist Islam) were losing ground. Democracy and its related set of values were values he had to respond to, even if he had not assimilated them.
Adhaalath party officials / image from times.mv
Meanwhile, the MDP’s camp attracted a diverse range of actors with disparate backgrounds — victims of the autocratic regime, the disenfranchised, the educated middle-class, etc. All perhaps, bound through by one nodal point – one basic idea — that Maldives needed democratization , and that was the discursive centre around which much of debates happened. There certainly were differences within MDP and it’s associates, but that basic idea remained primal.
This back and forth between MDP and the autocratic regime opened up the space for other actors in the Maldives as well. Among these were Salafists and similar groups, which had long been victims of Gayoom’s oppression. The opening of participatory politics, paved the way for Islamist parties, with the formation of Adhaalath party.
Though Islamist groups appreciated their new-found freedoms, some radicals remained skeptical of democracy itself, which they take to be an unsustainable ‘Western’ product that needs to be dislodged and replaced as soon as possible. These radical Islamists believed, and continue to believe, that there is no inherent value to sustaining a democracy – it’s value is only as a means for a theocracy to come.
Dr. Mauroof with George Galloway / image from twitter
There is always a danger in speaking of Islamist groups as one monolithic bloc that we stereotype and associate with anti-democratic radicalism and extremism. This would be fundamentally wrong. Even among the Salafists and Islamists there remain quite a large number of people who see an inherent value in democracy, and democratic values like freedom of press and speech.
This could hardly be true for Adhaalath, and its ideologists. Between 2003 and 2008 – on websites like Dharuma, and Noorul-Islam – Adhalaath’s main proponents continued to bash democratic values, human rights, and what they saw as ‘westernization’. This was at a time when Adhaalath remained quite marginal politically. Their numbers hardly registered in elections. But since they comprised of all the educated elite within the Islamist discourse, they had direct impact on public opinion on Islamic issues. Adhaalath combined this with the ideological notion they popularized, that Islamic matters must be addressed only by Islamic scholars – giving them a small but significant foothold from which to shape politics.
Yet, in Adhaalath’s strategy there was a momentary dialectic tension — even as they bashed democratic values and human rights, they were tacitly affirming democracy in their practice, by giving sermons and speeches, by forming associations, by forming parties, by holding debates, and opinion forming councils. More explicitly, they were embracing a limited form of democracy – a polyarchy within themselves where the educated elite or sheikhs were freely forming opinions , and debating and dispersing those opinions, which could be described in Islamic terms as shura. This was hardly possible before, under Maumoon’s brutal regime. There were perverse limitations to this opinion forming process, of course, but that is another article altogether.
“Wathan Edhey Gothah” Coalition from 2008 / image from flick — firax
In addition, Adhaalath’s position was conflated with struggles over identity (“West vs. us”, “true Muslim”, “modernity vs. a return”, etc) and struggles between Islamic discourses. What this means is that, at any given moment, they must factor in multiple variables in their calculation, of which being democratic or not, is just one variable. Hence Adhaalath’s position is not simply reducible to the binary, anti-democratic vs. pro-democratic.
In the second round of the 2008 presidential elections, Adhaalath joined up with the MDP as did Hassan Saeed, Ibra, and Gasim. The MDP won the elections and Mohamed Nasheed took over as president in a smooth transition of power. This was the first free and fair elections to take place in the Maldives, and an important step forward for democratic consolidation.
Even though the MDP, the main proponent of democracy, had just 25% of the popular vote in this first round, this show of solidarity by the various parties, with different ideologies against the autocratic regime, was important ideologically for democracy itself.
Progress stalled
In the ensuing years much of the debate would be framed through the language of liberal democracy, debates centered on the issue of whether that certain problem was of nature democratic, constitutional, corruption, etc. In the background, democratic ideology had been asserted as primal — that which shapes values, behaviours and attitudes.
Chief Supreme Court Justice Faiz / image from Raajje News
Meanwhile, other institutions of democracy were making progress. There were multiple free newspapers, magazines, TV channels, radio stations, civil society groups were forming, independent commissions were formed, and most importantly a free and fair election had been completed. Yet, within three short years there would be a dramatic reversal.
Gayoom left behind a vast network of loyalists that still paid him tutelary respect within the government machinery, police and military. In addition, the Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) – Gayoom’s party – and it’s allies would make inroads by taking the majority in the Majlis elections which was to affect the composition of the Supreme Court, where the majority is held by old Gayoom loyalists. In effect, Gayoom still cast a vast grey shadow over Maldives, and had indirect control over institutions.
Civil Service protest / image from Minivan News
Nasheed’s reform efforts were hampered from the very outset due to the worsening global economic crisis in 2008/2009. Tourist inflows slowed, and the government was left holding a huge deficit. At the recommendation of the IMF, Nasheed would initiate plans to reduce and control civil service costs — his first run-in with a major Gayoom clientele.
Nearly 40% of all employment in the Maldives is created within the civil service, and it’s rumoured that no government has ever been able to gauge its true finances. Because of this large bureaucracy, some have described Maldives’ situation as a Rentier State.
A Rentier State is a state with a large source of revenue from natural resources, such that it is not dependent on tax from its citizens. The corollary to that is the government uses this inflow to create a dependent bureaucracy for employment, and a large military to pacify its citizens. Thus the theory says, because the government does not tax its citizens, citizens cannot make direct demands from the government, and in case they do, the government will use the huge military to silence their voices. This amounts to a very persuasive explanation of the long and stable thirty year dictatorship of Gayoom.
Following the economic crisis, attempts to change the civil service salary structure would backfire as the civil service association took the government to court. The economic crisis also affected small businesses, civil society, and the free press, and as media sources dwindled, the gap would be filled by media funded by resort owning oligarchs, primarily Haveeru, Sun, DhiTV, DhiFM & VTV.
Dollar transaction / image by @subcorpus
These resort-funded media outlets, and Gayoom’s political parties, worked hand-in hand and together would leverage the disaffection during the dollar crisis to form a bulwark against Nasheed & the MDP. Working with the media, using the Majlis and the Supreme Court as instruments, Gayoom’s loyalists would manufacture issue after issue, to which the MDP could not adequately respond. We can recall here a number of issues like the introduction of GST, Aasandha, and many others. In the worsening crisis – economic and political – the MDP lost crucial voting blocs, most significantly in Male’ (as has been evident in the first round of 2013 Presidential elections).
It’s important to note the transitions in background values, behaviours and attitude that occur at this point with the consolidation of media sources funded heavily by the resort owning oligarchs, and in the way these media were used, between 2009/2010.
DhiTV screenshot showing EC members, with their heads upside down / image from twitter @mideyalvarez
With the twilight of Gayoom’s oppressive era circa 2003, a number of media outlets came into being. What these new sources brought was the idea of an active citizen, who would inform themselves of issues, join debates, and challenge the status quo. The background idea was of liberation from chains, awakening from darkness, and activity against passivity, apathy and lethargy. The idea hinged on the potential capacity of these citizens to free themselves, to know right from wrong and decide for themselves.
What the resort owning oligarchs brought back circa 2009/2010 was the idea of a top down bullhorn – a blunt object to manipulate an objectified, malleable, subject, but with a slight twist that was different from Gayoom’s. The notion was that listeners or viewers had no independent capacity to form opinions of their own, and would be receptive to the way media primes and conditions them with their language. They were careful to use the language of democracy, to manipulate conditions in favour of the resort owning oligarchs.
In this way they would demand action against Nasheed’s administration. In other words, they were mobilising crowds to protect the status quo that benefits the resort owning oligarchs. They would manufacture crises in order to claim that such and such were “unconstitutional”, against “free speech”, etc. Unlike Gayoom, they were no longer demanding passivity, but using liberation language to undermine democratic institutions. They were undermining democratic institutions, but were using the language of democracy. It was blatantly cynical and manipulative.
Sheikh Imran / image from Haveeru
Democratic reversal
The next turning point in our story would come late in 2011, with Adhaalath leaving Nasheed’s administration, joining the opposition and the formation of the 23 December Ithihaad. This turn brought with it a whole new language, and would fundamentally change and eject the primacy of democratic ideology. The battle ground would shift from a terrain where “democracy was the only game in town” to one where democracy itself had to battle an anti-democratic Islamo-Nationalism.
The new Islamo-Nationalism that was emerging was nothing similar to the old Islamo-Nationalism of Gayoom. One has to make the distinction here, that this ideology that was emerging was quite different from all the things that had inspired it. It was in a sense determined by a number of movements, histories and trends, and situated firmly within the particularities of our politics. Adhaalath brought with it the language of globalist Salafism, and political Islam. Yet, what they preached on the podiums had little to do with Salafism – it was addressing a Maldivian subject, within the confines of a Maldivian history, promoting a particularly Maldivian political project — that of challenging Nasheed.
Gayoom’s progeny, Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) & DRP, brought with it the memory of a stable thirty years, and used the language of nationalism — sovereignty, independence, militarism, harmony, unity, etc. The 23rd December Ithihaad that emerged used our collective memory and fears, promoting xenophobia and isolationism. The movement was in continuity with a certain history, also a discontinuity, and a break from our past.
Police and military inside the state broadcaster compound posing for a picture on 7th February 2012 / Image source unknown
The December 23rd Itihaad’s anti-democratic turn would come after the 7th February 2012’s coup d’état. Up until then, they were still using the language of constitutionalism, democracy and so on. But after the coup, not having much to rely on after pulling off an anti-democratic coup, and firmly challenged by the MDP, they would drop all pretense of being democratic, and rely solely on Islamo-Nationalism — that language of sovereignty, unity, harmony, Islamic identity, etc. They must have realized that it was a losing battle, and needed to alter the board itself, to survive. What we are left with is a severe reversal of the democratic project.
After the coup, Hassan Saeed was caught on tape saying that this was a “unique coup”. But there is nothing unique about the reversal of fortune for democracy in the Maldives, and it follows quite closely with cases studied in democracy consolidation literature. According to scholars who have studied democratic consolidation, where democratic transition takes place not through direct replacement, but in a negotiated transfer of power, old regimes continue to hold vested interests in state institutions and perverse informal institutions, as a guarantee against persecution. At times these old dictators have used these institutions to upend the democratic project. This is exactly the case in Maldives, where Nasheed was given a poisoned chalice.
Presidential Candidate Mohamed Nasheed speaking after runoff elections were halted by Supreme Court / image from flickr @dyingregime
In this post-election debacle today, what we are witnessing is an attempt by the members of the 23rd December Ithihaad at a systematic destruction of the last standing democratic institution — the electoral system.
The election was monitored by international bodies, the counting was done in front of party representatives. There are no significant issues with the voter’s registry. Yet, the counting was followed by VTV’s campaign to create doubt about the election results, as these media funded by resort owning oligarchs have done similarly in the past. The Supreme Court, infiltrated by Gayoom’s loyalists, has intervened and is deliberately delaying the runoff election. Adhaalath is using its ideological tools to campaign against Nasheed and Elections Commission. How this is a religious message is beyond me. The police and military are being deployed to pacify those demanding for an immediate runoff election.
The conclusion writes itself. We demand our right to vote!
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]
“Ultimately, the test of an election is if it’s accepted by the people,” international judicial expert, and advisor to the Maldives Election Commission (EC), Johann Kriegler said in a public lecture yesterday (September 26).
“Elections are not about mathematics, elections are not about law. Elections are about people, about perceptions, about beliefs,” said the former judge of the Constitutional Court of South Africa, who has been working as part of the UNDP’s team in Male’.
Judge Kriegler concluded his lecture, titled ‘Elections: Beauty or Beast?’, by stating that the trust of the electorate is the most important factor in running an election.
Judge Kriegler was reluctant to comment specifically on the current situation in the Maldives, where the Supreme Court and the Elections Commission (EC) have this week been locked in a consitutional battle over whether to proceed with the second round of voting.
The Jumhooree Party (JP), has been pursuing legal action to annul the poll, citing as-yet unsubstantiated claims of systemic failure on behalf of the EC.
The poll has been universally praised as being free and fair by all international observers present during the first round, as well as local NGOs and the Human Rights Commission.
Kriegler chose instead to recount some of his previous experiences in handling elections across the world – most notably in Kenya, 2007.
Following the disastrous fallout from the presidential elections that year, thousands were killed in inter-tribal violence. Judge Kriegler formed part of the post-election dispute resolution team.
The lecture included the specifics of the electoral problems, including the failings of the Election Management Body (EMB) in Kenya at the time, the Elections Commission of Kenya.
Commenting on the quality of the electoral register in Kenya during these elections, Judge Kriegler noted that it was found to be only around 70 percent accurate.
“In my experience, this was good enough,” said the judge.
Maldives election “as good as I’ve ever seen”
During a question and answer session after the lecture, Judge Kriegler was asked if he could comment on the competency of the Maldives EC.
Reasserting his reluctance to comment on ongoing matters, Kriegler stated simply that this was “as good an election as I have seen.”
“Do you want me to say more?”
When looking into discrepancies in the voting process in Kenya, Kriegler noted that a rational excuse was behind most problems, upsetting the conspiracy theorists.
More important, he argued, was the work of political and civil society groups who had been working to delegitimise the EMB for months prior to the election.
“It was a significant factor in what went wrong there.”
Remarking on the changes made between Kenya’s 2007 and 2013 elections, he noted that trust had been the key improvement.
“Kenyan elections were not particularly good this last time round, but the new EMB is trusted, number one. Number two, the judges were trusted,they fired the old lot – lock, stock, and barrel. They said you can re-apply for your job – excellent idea…The result was that…the last election was accepted by the electorate.”
Finally, Judge Kriegler compared his own country’s “messy” 1994 general election with that of Mexico’s “technically perfect” poll in the same year.
Whilst the apartheid ending vote was a success, Mexico’s election ended in months of rioting, he said.
“In South Africa, the poor, incompetent but honest elections were accepted because the people believed in it. The people believed in it because the electoral management bodies had the support of the political parties,” Kriegler continued.
“The political parties boosted this little body that had no track record and no experience and had an impossible job. But we did the job together – that’s why it worked.”
Aishath Velezinee was formerly the President’s Member on the Judicial Services Commission (JSC), the watchdog body assigned to appoint and investigate complaints against judges.
Three years ago she turned whistleblower and alleged the JSC was complicit in protecting judges appointed under the Gayoom’s government, and was colluding with parliament to ensure legal impunity for senior opposition supporters. In January 2011 she was stabbed twice in the back in broad daylight.
Contentious actions by the Maldives’ judiciary have sparked international concern, particularly the Supreme Court ruling to indefinitely delay the presidential election runoff scheduled for this Saturday September 28.
Minivan News discusses some of the challenges regarding the judiciary, democracy, and transitional justice in the Maldives with Aishath Velezinee.
Leah R Malone: In regard to the Supreme Court’s contentious actions involving the ongoing Elections Commission case., a friend remarked that it was the result of “too much democracy” creating a dysfunctional balance of power between the three branches of government, which has allowed the Supreme Court to establish a judicial tyranny.
Is the current instability in the Maldives and the dysfunctional tripartite system the result of “too much democracy”? Why is the balance of power between the executive, judicial and legislative branches of government skewed?
Aishath Velezinee: I think people don’t seem to understand what democracy is. Democracy is not all about freedom and separation of powers – it doesn’t mean every branch of government gets to go their own way. It’s about balance. They forget that regarding the separation of powers, the purpose is mainly to create balance – so one branch [of government] does not run away with their powers and encroach on the other(s). The purpose is so that one branch will check the other.
What’s now happening is that – in the name of independence – every institution is encroaching on the powers of the other. There is no balance. There is no check. [Instead] now there is a contest to see who is the most powerful. What we really need to remember is that we haven’t had separation of powers. We were supposed to build a democratic state and the constitution very clearly outlined how we were supposed to do that. There was going to be a presidential election, there was going to be a parliamentary election, and then there was going to be the most important step, the appointment of an independent judiciary.
That third [judicial] power was hijacked by people who had been called judges before. I’m saying people who were called ‘judges’ before because, prior to the 2008 constitution, judge was a job title given to certain civil servants who sat in the court and passed sentences. They did not have law backgrounds. They did not have judicial experience. The Justice Ministry had legal sections that were providing them with guidance on cases, on how cases must be concluded, and half the time the magistrate [judge] just had to look up the sentence in the penal code and deliver it.
They were like newsreaders in a television newsroom. [While] there would be the people behind the scenes writing the news and looking into stories, the newsreader is someone who dresses up and sits in front of camera and reads, delivering the news to the audience. So these judges were trained like that. They sat on the bench, the chair of the seat of the judge, and they delivered the verdict. They were people who looked like judges were supposed to be. The real work was done in the Ministry of Justice by teams – they had sections for northern, central, southern areas [of the Maldives], etc. – that’s how the system worked.
Suddenly the 2008 constitution said “Okay, now we have an independent judiciary.” Every judge is independent, they must oversee their own trials, the cases before them, and deliver the verdicts. [But] what experience do these people have? So they were doing similar things to what they’d done before – they would copy [previous verdicts]. It’s like monkey see monkey do, but monkey doesn’t know how they do.
LRM: Do you think the Supreme Court’s actions are tyrannical?
AV: Indeed it is tyrannical. In 2010 I submitted a case to the JSC – an urgent motion to look into the matter of judicial tyranny. It already was happening in 2010, [but] of course the JSC did not table the case. What’s going on in the JSC today was going on in the JSC in 2010 too. It all started late 2009 [and has continued] to now – it’s just gotten worse now.
It is indeed judicial tyranny and now has become a life and death issue for the courts, because the judges’ jobs are threatened. It’s become obvious to the world so it’s much easier for the state to really execute Article 285.
Until now one of the problem was that the international community – and everyone who commented and advised [the Maldives] – really didn’t have proper knowledge of the [Maldives’] constitution and what it provided for. They understood that every democracy has a judiciary that is independent. Nobody considered we never had a judiciary before, therefore we cannot have an independent judiciary without meaningfully executing Article 285.
LRM: How has this impacted rule of law and why is rule of law essential for the safety and stability of the nation? Is the country currently in a rule of law vacuum?
AV: Rule of law is the basis of democratic government. Rule of law cannot exist without an independent judiciary and a responsible parliament that holds the independent commissions accountable. Rule of law did not exist in 2010. Due process was not followed in confirming all these judges for life – taking it [Article 285] as a symbolic thing, taking a symbolic oath, that wasn’t rule of law. We lost rule of law way before the [February 2012] coup. I don’t think from 2008 – [even] with the constitution – I don’t think we have ever been able to establish rule of law as understood in a democratic state.
If you listen to the [pro-government] people talking like the former Minister Jameel – now Yameen’s running mate – when they talk of rule of law it is all about punishing somebody, it’s all about crime and punishment. They don’t seem to understand law as anything more than punishment, [but there is also] the process, setting standards, due process, [legal] practice – the way things are done, these things are lost.
LRM: In previous interviews with Minivan News You have often spoken about a ‘silent coup’ – a collusion between the judiciary, the JSC and opposition-aligned members of parliament to preserve the pliability of the judiciary as it was under former Justice Ministry and President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom.
Do you believe the Supreme Court action to thwart the democratic presidential election is an extension of this?
AV: Yes, exactly – it is the one coup that has been going on. Initially I don’t think they imagined they would need to go take up arms, force President Nasheed to resign under duress, and violently crackdown on his supporters. They would have thought [because] they hijacked the courts in 2010, they could have used the courts to bring down President Nasheed. That is what they were targeting and doing.
The whole criminal justice system in this country was controlled by those who are alleged to be behind the serious, organized crime in this country, so they wanted to bring President Nasheed down through the courts. They failed doing that, and then the 7th of February coup came – and we all know it is very much connected to the removal of Abdulla Mohamed who sits on the Criminal Court.
I can’t call him Judge Abdulla, I have never called him judge, he’s Abdulla Mohamed, a man who sits in the Criminal Court because he’s kept there by political forces. He wasn’t appointed duly – and neither of the other judges – by the JSC.
What is now happening is they got away with the coup on 7th February. They have very cleverly covered it up – made it appear to the outside world that it was legitimate. What has happened is our failure to acknowledge the mistakes with the judiciary, with [properly enacting] Article 285. Still today our failure to acknowledge those mistakes is giving the impression to the world that we do have an independent judiciary, even if the judiciary is bad. If we have a legitimate judiciary then the world cannot speak about it.
My point is that we do not have a legitimate judiciary because we failed to execute the constitution as we were supposed to do. But the politicians are finding it very hard to admit to their mistakes and that is giving the wrong impression to the world. If we accept we have a judiciary then we have to honor it. Now I think it has become – even to the general public, people who really don’t understand the concepts – very obvious that these courts are not functional, that these courts are biased, they are politicized. Judges do not have the integrity and trust required [of their station], nobody trusts these judges.
For example, the behavior of Supreme Court Judge Ali Hameed and his sex videos… Maldives is 100 percent Islamic, puritan community, I think that [his actions are] unbelievable and that he is sitting there on the bench delivering verdicts is something even the grandmothers are finding hard to accept.
LRM: The UN special rapporteur noted the Supreme Court’s politicisation – how has this affected the ability of the court to impartially adjudicate the Jumhooree Party’s case against the Elections Commission? Specifically, the constitutionality of the court’s ruling to indefinitely delay the presidential election runoff has been called into question, the commission’s defense lawyers have been ejected from court, and anonymous witness testimonies without accompanying evidence have been allowed – are these actions reflections of the courts politicisation?
AV: As far as I’m concerned, the courts have no business interfering in this election process at all. More than that I am saying the Supreme Court is a political agreement, a political deal. It’s not a legitimate court, so therefore I don’t believe the courts have any right to deliver verdicts on anything.
I have not petitioned the courts for anything because to me there are no courts. It’s not easy living without courts. I also have issues I would like to take up, but I just don’t have access to courts. The state has failed to provide courts.
LRM: What actions must be taken to establish a legitimate, functioning judiciary?
AV: I think everyone has to come out and speak the full truth now. Some of the politicians who were the people behind the hijack of the judiciary – I have named people before, [Parliamentary] Speaker Abdulla Shahid, Dhivehi Rayithunge Party (DRP) Leader [and President Waheed’s running mate] Ahmed Thasmeen – all of them have now acknowledged that they made mistakes in 2010. We have heard DRP MP Rozeina speak of Gayoom, who was the DRP leader at that time, forcing them to do these things. They have acknowledged what was going on 2010.
It is now time for everyone to sit down, come out and say “really we made a mistake”, unfortunately, possibly because democracy was in the infant stage and most of the people were quite ignorant of what was supposed to happen with the constitution. We all made mistakes and we have lost a judiciary [as the result]. That has to be acknowledged and we cannot reform a judiciary without a legitimate government first.
First thing is elections – we should try and have them on schedule. That must be followed by executing Article 285 fully, under close scrutiny of the international community, in a way the general public from all [political] parties can grasp.
In addition to Article 285 not being implemented properly, what other shortcomings need to be addressed to ensure the JSC’s ability to function? What other transitional justice measures still need to be taken?
AV: People talk about the JSC being a problem, but it was the people who were the problem – just like in other places, it was the people who were committing treason. The JSC first and foremost needs to be open and transparent and that would limit room for mischief in there. That is the major step needed.
Opening [the country] to the democratic process is already reform. I’m very concerned about this talk of re-writing the constitution and changing laws to do this and that. That, I think, will create more mess at this time. The JSC will need to be reformed, the composition will need to be reformed at some point. It is known that, in most countries in developed democracies, the judges look after themselves – make sure all judges are disciplined and there is no misconduct in the courts. But here, given the status of the judiciary, it would be a danger to hand over the JSC to the judges.
As it is now, it should be made to function in a proper democratic manner, where their meetings are transparent, where the agenda for meetings are open, media has access to the meetings, and – like in the Majlis – anything passed by the JSC must be published in proper format, and they should not be given room for corruption inside the commission.
LRM: Do you think Gasim Ibrahim’s former position as a JSC member has compromised the commission or the Supreme Court’s adjudication of the Election’s Commission case?
AV: Because the JSC is not functioning in a proper manner, because decisions are not taken democratically, because it’s all closed session – then anyone in there could influence things. When I was sitting in the commission, we were supposed to screen the judges – it just didn’t happen – there was no way it was going to happen, they didn’t want to do it.
That’s not how it should function, if the media were there it would have been reported – the public would have understood what was going on. So underhand things were going on and Gasim Ibrahim manipulated the whole thing as there was room to do so.
LRM: What implications has the judiciary’s failure had on other state institutions? Particularly the Maldives Police Service (MPS), Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF), ministries, the various independent commissions?
AV: When the judiciary fails, there is no law for anybody to go and seek justice. So even when the police do the most perfect job – with the judiciary not being there – there’s no point. I’m not saying the police are doing their work to the best of their abilities now, or that they are doing it right, but even if they were doing it, the courts are the ones who decide. I think the bottom line is courts, and it is the courts who would hold the police accountable.
LRM: Do you think they have been holding the police accountable?
AV: I think there’s been long-time relationships between the judges and the long-time people in the police, and the long-time people in the institutions. We are very much a person based society. There are social relationships – that’s the way to get things done. You have a friend in the bank, you have a friend in the police, you have a friend in the court – we are still continuing with the same system. I think that’s one of the reasons the law community could not speak on Article 285 and the judicial corruption and issues we are facing today.
Even if they talk, who would they go to when they depend on the courts to earn their living. They can’t be talking about it when they know there is no institution to look into the matter. Most people do not report judges misconduct to the JSC, but they used to confide in me. I can’t take up personal experiences of people to the JSC, I took up what was in the media – what became public.
Those things they had to report, but I found people were hesitant to report misconduct of judges because they cannot appear in court the next day. The judge accused of being involved would be informed by whoever in the JSC and they would then withhold the lawyer for contempt of court of something. It’s not functioning.
LRM: Has the Supreme Court regulation enacted in June 2012 prevented the Elections Commission from receiving a fair defence?
AV: It’s a control measure meant to gag the lawyers, meant to cover up their own incompetency and their own inaction. Like I said before, lawyers will not dare stand up against it, but when the UN special rapporteur was here, the judges and the lawyers have spoken to her of these issues because they could trust her.
LRM: How has Supreme Court Judge Ali Hameed’s implication in a series of sex videos compromised the Supreme Court bench? What behavioural standards should judges adhere to?
AV: I think what the Supreme Court has told by their silence is that it’s fine to have sex, it’s fine to have sex with multiple women, it’s fine to have sex tapes all over the internet. I don’t see why the courts are sentencing people for fornication or any sexual activity or behaviour. There is no devious sexual behaviour in this country anymore.
LRM: The UN special rapporteur noted the politicised nature of the Supreme Court, the JSC, and the lack of public trust in the judiciary. However, today President Waheed commented that the judiciary makes “sound and impartial decisions” and the public recognises the legitimacy of the courts. Is Waheed’s assessment accurate?
AV: I think the president making such a comment is already showing that he is influencing the courts, he has no business in commenting on what is going on in the Supreme Court.
I think he should be calling on the Supreme Court to expedite proceedings if he is accepting these proceedings are legitimate. He should be concerned that the Supreme Court is dragging it on and has put out this order to indefinitely postpone elections. That should be the worry of the president right now. He should be asking to expedite elections.
LRM: Are the claims that MDP supporters are being targeted by the courts accurate or inflated?
AV: It’s history repeating – we’ve seen this happening before. We’re back to the February 2012 coup stage where the MDP is being chased and being persecuted. I think the whole purpose of delaying the elections is to eliminate [Mohamed] Nasheed in any way they can and to harass MDP so that they would create opportunity for MDP to force someone – other than the MDP or Yameen – to win the elections, for them to hold onto the power they have through the coup now.
LRM: How does the compromised state of judiciary endanger the Maldivian public?
AV: Everyone is personally impacted, but people don’t understand it. What is reported is the political cases m – what about the woman who goes on a custody case? Is she getting justice? What about the prostitutes issues? What about the land and civil court cases? We’re talking about people who do not have the knowledge required of a judge, who do not have the experience required of a judge, people who do not have the integrity, people who do not understand what independence means, people who do not fully understate Article 2 of the constitution at all. So what rights are protected by having a person called a judge sitting up on a bench and giving sentences. I think justice is completely lost in this country.
The focus is very much on the politics of the courts, so it gives the wrong impression to the international community that this is all about politics and its about control of the courts politically. That is part of it but there is also the other part – that the judiciary is not up to standard, and by standard I’m not talking about the top quality in the world, I’m talking about basic understanding of democratic concepts and the constitution.
They may understand the laws – they may know them by heart, most of the laws we have are pre-2008 – but they really don’t understand the foundations, the constitution. Absolutely not.
LRM: The UN special rapporteur also noted that “the delicate issue of accountability for past human rights violations also needs to be addressed.” What has been the judiciary’s role be in creating a culture of impunity and thwarting redress?
AV: I think we are jumping the gun here, we have to first have a judiciary before we can address any of the past cases. We can’t have hand-picked men sitting on the bench and delivering on this. They will be asking them to pardon everybody – we need a judiciary first.
LRM: What implications does the Supreme Court ruling to indefinitely delay the democratic presidential election’s runoff have on the Maldives’ democratic transition from Gayoom’s 30-year authoritarian rule?
AV: It’s not a democracy just because we have a democratically elected president – we’ve had that from 2008 and we’ve seen we could not run a democratic government – could not establish a democratic state with just a president alone. So, unless we create all the institutions of a democratic state, we might still fall into the same trouble we have in 2012.
So we should be focusing on state building, we should be looking very carefully at the constitution – following the constitution to the letter and in spirit, and building up a democratic state. We should start from ground zero again. We should start from the bottom. We should take the constitution as a new thing once again. We would have the experiences of where we failed before.
The whole country should join hands – it’s the PPM logo, ‘everyone united’ – we should be a democratic state and the first step, if they are really for it, would be to accept they are failing and go for second round election. If they win – they have won. But if they lose – if they want to build a democracy -they would accept they have lost in a democratic election, and then would play their role as responsible opposition and ensure that the government that is elected does not commit corruption and crimes and make sure the government builds a democratic state.
LRM: What actions/inactions have been made by the international community that have legitimised the judiciary? What actions should the international community take?
AV: Mistakes in not understanding the issues that are in the judiciary, not understanding that we were in a process of transition, not understanding the importance of Article 285. I think all of these are on Gabriella Knaul’s record – her report provides a comprehensive view of the whole coup and the international community should be reading that, looking at it, trying to understand what happened here and trying to ensure that the same mistakes are not repeated in the future.
Right now we need to focus on elections, we need to have elections on schedule and everyone needs to try and hold the state accountable to its own constitution, which demands that an election be held 21 days from the first round.
I will be voting in the presidential election on Saturday September 28 and will place my ballot into a ballot box or into white ‘jangiyaa’ (‘underpants’).
White underwear are a reference to recently-leaked videos of Supreme Court judge Ali Hameed apparently fornicating with unidentified foreign women in a Colombo hotel room, and have become a symbol of protests against the Supreme Court’s suspension of Saturday’s highly anticipated presidential election. The underpants above read: 'judiciary happy, happy. Where are the citizen's rights?'
Lawyers defending the Elections Commission (EC) and representing the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) were today ejected from the Supreme Court, for criticising its order to indefinitely delay the second round of presidential elections.
The EC’s lawyer, former Attorney General Husnu Suood, was reportedly accused of contempt of court and removed from court.
The MDP’s legal team, including lawyers Hisaan Hussein and Hassan Latheef, who had intervened in the case as a third party (inter-partes claim), were also dismissed from today’s hearing, which was ongoing at time of press.
The Supreme Court letter posted by MDP lawyer Hisaan Hussain stated that she had been barred from appearing before the court in the ongoing Jumhooree Party (JP) versus EC case as her remarks “in the media as well as social media” had allegedly “diminished the dignity” of the court and were under investigation.
MDP MP Ahmed Hamza announced at a press conference that the party had left the Supreme Court case as a third party, as it “no longer believed justice would be served by the court.”
Hamza noted that the suspended lawyers were not allowed any opportunity to defend themselves before they were barred from the apex court.
The EC has defended itself by challenging the veracity of evidence submitted by the JP alleging electoral impropriety, and stated that even were the allegations factual, they were not sufficient to impact the results of the first round.
The EC has also pointed to unanimous positive assessments of the polling by local and international observers, including the Commonwealth, EU, US, UN, India, Transparency Maldives, the Maldivian Democracy Network and the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM).
The Supreme Court nonetheless issued the injunction last night (September 23) to delay the runoff election until it has finished looking into the JP’s alleged discrepancies.
“No recourse”
Prior to attending the case today, Suood told Minivan News that the EC had “no recourse” against the Supreme Court’s suspension of the run-off, despite there being “no legal basis” for the order that has the “constitution up in flames”.
Suood contends that the Supreme Court injunction is in breach of Article 111 of the constitution, which demands a run-off election within 21 days of a first round in which no candidate reaches over 50 percent.
While there were more “complicated” legal arguments for refuting the Supreme Court injunction, Article 111 provides the simplest example of the constitutional violation committed by the court, according to Suood.
Suood explained that there is no way to appeal the Supreme Court order or seek another judicial remedy: “There is no further recourse,” he stated.
While constitutionally the legislative or executive branches should intervene in the matter, Suood said he believed parliament must take action against the Supreme Court.
“Parliament needs to re-convene and decide [what actions to take],” said Suood. “However parliament cannot take decisions [right now] because of the [divisive] politics within it.”
Disorderly protests by MPs of the government-aligned Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) and JP stymied, but failed to stop, an MDP resolution to ensure that the second round of the presidential election is held as scheduled.
Suood however explained that it would be “very, very difficult” to remove the judges sitting on the Supreme Court bench, not only because of political polarisation creating unrest within Parliament, but also due to the politicised composition of the Judicial Service Commission (JSC).
“The JSC would need to issue a motion [to remove a judge or judges], which would then need the approval of Parliament, but the JSC Chair is also Supreme Court judge,” noted Suood.
The JSC recently decided to reject a proposed no-confidence motion against its Chair, Supreme Court Justice Adam Mohamed, filed by commission member Shuaib Abdul Rahman.
“The JSC is out of control right now, we must do something. The JSC president is ‘out of the circle’,” Parliament’s Independent Institutions Committee Member and MDP MP Ahmed Sameer previously told Minivan News.
The Supreme Court bench consists of seven judges, all of whom discussed the ruling against the EC, however the injunction was signed by four: Justice Abdulla Saeed, Justice Ali Hameed Mohamed, Justice Adam Mohamed Abdulla, and Justice Dr Abdulla Didi.
Meanwhile, during the MDP’s National Council meeting last night (September 23) the party’s presidential candidate and former President Mohamed Nasheed reassured supporters “not to worry”.
“The Maldives is changing, and it will change according to how we want it to. I call on the Election Commissioner to ignore the Supreme Court, and to obey Majlis resolution and hold elections on Saturday,” said Nasheed.
Following the Supreme Court’s decision to accept the Jumhooree Party’s case against the Elections Commission last week, the MDP released a statement indicating its resolve to “not allow a courthouse that consists of some disgraced judges who face allegations of lewd conduct to abrogate the will of the people and disrupt the constitution”.
Meanwhile, the MDP demonstrated at the Supreme Court today behind police cordons further down the street, after the party’s pledge to continue direct action until the presidential run-off is re-scheduled.
Women on the front line held aloft cartoons mocking Supreme Court Justice Ali Hameed – one of four judges whose name appeared on yesterday’s ruling – for his infamous role in a sex tape scandal earlier this year.
Others brandished pictures depicting the large pair of white underpants – a reference to the same video – that have quickly become emblematic of the demonstrations.
This article was first published onDhivehi Sitee. Republished with permission.
The first multi-party Presidential election of 2008 in the Maldives marked an end to the 30-year authoritarian regime of President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom and saw the installation of a democratic government. However, since the coup in 2012, Maldives is on a rocky road in its democratisation process.
Taking the advice of a close friend of mine who stated that, “if several different people don’t write about the significant events changing their societies, romanticization of, and myths around, those events creep in, and that is one way unreal heroes and unreal villains are born”, I have attempted to write some of my understanding of the democratisation process in the Maldives. As such, in an earlier piece, I have explored how democratisation occurred in the Maldives.
The aim of this piece is to identify the major factors that could explain why democratisation occurs in the first place. Scholars in the past have developed various theories that explain the democratisation of a country. These include the deepening legitimacy issues of authoritarian systems due to the wider acceptance of democratic values, rapid economic growth, and changing policies of international actors towards democracy. I argue that modernisation and international pressure for democratic reforms were the major factors that led to democratisation in the Maldives and assess here how both factors contributed to democratisation in the Maldives.
Modernisation factor
The positive correlation between modernisation and democracy is well established within political science literature. Modernisation theory is the belief that economic development directly leads to positive social and political changes. As one of the first proponents of this theory, Seymour Martin Lipset argues that economic development leads to modernisation that encompasses industrialisation, higher average income, urbanisation and better education. All these factors produce profound social transformation that together leads to democratisation.
Since Gayoom came to power, Maldives has achieved significant economic growth and hence significant transformations in the society. The social transformations in the Maldives became an important factor leading to democratic reforms. In particular, three aspects of modernisation – increased average income, urbanisation and better education – have all facilitated the growth of democratic aspirations within the Maldivian society. These three factors are explored further below.
Average Income
When Gayoom came to power in 1978, Maldives was regarded as one of the poorest 25 countries and hence included in the UN list of the Least Developed Countries (LDC). However, in 1997, Maldives graduated from the list of LDCs because of the development progress. This development was driven by the growth of high-end tourism in the country. The Maldives’ GDP grew from US $25 million in 1978 to US $700 million in 2008. Furthermore, given the small population, Maldives has the highest per capita income in South Asia.
We therefore could infer that during President Gayoom’s authoritarian regime, average income has grown. Larry Diamond, one of the leading scholars in democracy studies, argues that “as people acquire more income and information, they become more politically aware and confident, more inclined to participate in politics, to think for themselves, and thus to break free of traditional patron-client ties”. Similarly, in the context of Maldives, the increase in average income resulted in more citizens being politically aware and active. This is particularly evident in more urbanised islands such as Male’, the capital of Maldives.
Urbanisation
The degree of urbanisation, according to Lipset, has a strong correlation with democracy. Furthermore, Diamond argues that as people move to cities from rural areas, they adhere to new political attitudes and beliefs largely due to the increased education levels and global communication. Being the capital city and centre of all government activities, Male’ has assumed the character of a ‘metropole’. Many citizens from outer islands have moved to Male’ to attain better services including education, employment and healthcare. The year 2000 census shows a population of 74,069 people in Male’ and was the only island with more than 10,000 inhabitant.
Urbanisation had significantly transformed the society and led to more politically active citizens. An assessment conducted by the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI) found that ‘the level of political awareness and sophistication’ was significantly higher in Male’ compared to other islands. These factors resulted in an increasing number of citizens questioning the legitimacy of the authoritarian regime and expressing the preference for a democratic regime as the most viable political system. As a result, the struggle for democratic reforms first started in the capital and the opposition garnered strong support in Male’.
Education
Education, as another aspect of modernisation, is an important factor in the Maldives’ democratisation. There is a voluminous literature on the relationship between education and the support for democracy. For instance, Lipset argues that a better-educated population in a country increases the chances for democracy in that country. Education affects the valuation of individuals’ beliefs and values, resulting in a greater acceptance of democratic values. A recent survey conducted in South Asia also found formal education to be a strong factor determining the level of support for democracy.
The same applied in the Maldives. During Gayoom’s regime, a significant number of Maldivians had the opportunity to obtain higher education overseas, giving them greater exposure to the outside world. A significant number of elites within the opposition came to value democracy as a result of such education and exposure. For instance, President Mohamed Nasheed, who was elected in 2008, played a vital role in democratisation in Maldives, acting as the main opposition leader during President Gayoom’s regime. President Nasheed was educated in the UK and had a greater exposure to a practicing democracy.
International factor
International pressure on Gayoom’s authoritarian regime also played a significant role in the democratisation of Maldives. Two important aspects – economy and security – makes the Maldives a weak state susceptible to international pressure. As far as the economy is concerned, Maldives has very limited means (mainly tourism and fish export) of earning foreign currency and is also aid-dependent.
Professor Tom Ginsburg from the University of Chicago Law School argues that, in terms of security, Maldives does not have the capability to guard its maritime borders. As a result, the country is highly dependent on the international actors and these actors who stronlyg influence on domestic issues. Former Foreign Minister Dr. Ahmed Shaheed argues that, President Gayoom’s regime proved sensitive to international pressure and in many cases led to a change of course towards democratic reforms.
The international community particularly stood against the arbitrary arrest of opposition politicians, widespread human rights abuses and torture in prisons. Several Amnesty International reports helped awaken the international community about the repressive tendencies of President Gayoom’s regime. For instance, the August 2004 crackdown that resulted in arrest of many opposition figures attracted strong criticism from countries such as the United States, Britain, India and Sri Lanka. Moreover, Members of European Parliament called to an end to all non-humanitarian aid as well as imposing travel ban to Maldives. As a result, President Gayoom soon faced isolation from the international community.
However, this isolation came to an end with the 2004 tsunami that had significant negative impacts on the economy, especially the tourism industry. The nation, therefore, was in a great need of humanitarian assistance. Professor Ginsburg argues that the 2004 tsunami substantially facilitated opening up the nation to international engagement. Furthermore, it gave international donors the leverage they needed to apply additional pressure on the autocratic regime to pursue and speed-up democratic reforms. As a country highly dependent on the international community in terms of foreign aid, tourism and good standing with the outside world, the pressure from external actors such as Amnesty International and the European Union (EU) became too much for the President Gayoom’s regime. As a result, the regime did bring about several democratic reforms.
In sum, democratic reforms in the Maldives resulted from two major factors. Firstly, modernisation facilitated the positive social transformations that eventually produced democracy in the Maldives. Secondly, international pressure for democratic reforms also played a significant role in democratisation in the Maldives. As a country that is highly dependent on international community, Maldives is susceptible to international pressure. The efforts from international actors such as EU in many cases have compelled the regime to allow democratic reforms in the Maldives.
Apart from the factors discussed in this essay, there are also other reasons that led to democratisation in the Maldives. For instance, the growing economic and social inequality, the oppressiveness of Gayoom’s regime, increased civil society participation, and the restricted practice of Islam (eg: restriction on preaching by religious scholars) are also likely to have played significant roles in the democratisation of Maldives.
Ahmed Hamdhan is a third-year Bachelor of Arts (Policy Studies and Political Science) and a student at the Australian National University.
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]
The US has hailed the results of the first round of the presidential election in the Maldives as a “victory for the democratic process”.
In a statement, Deputy Spokesperson for the US State Department Marie Harf noted that the results had been “widely hailed as a success” by the Commonwealth, United Nations, and local Maldivian observers.
The comment comes as Jumhooree Party candidate Gasim Ibrahim, who placed third with 24.07 percent and narrowly missed a place in the run-off, contests a case in the Supreme Court seeking annulment of the results, alleging electoral irregularities.
The JP was supported in the ongoing court case by the Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM), while Attorney General Azima Shukoor also intervened and criticised the conduct of the Elections Commission.
“As the country prepares for the second round on September 28, the United States and the international community again stand ready to assist Maldivians as they exercise their fundamental right to choose their own government,” declared the US State Department.
“For this final round to be as successful as the previous round, all political parties must respect the democratic process and continue to allow for a free, fair and peaceful vote to take place. We encourage all parties and all presidential candidates to respect the results and work together for a peaceful transition for the benefit of the Maldivian people,” the statement concluded.
Police have searched six houses on Hithadhoo in Addu City as part of a special operation conducted by the police Special Operations (SO) team based in Addu for elections security.
A police spokesperson would not confirm whether anybody was arrested during the raids.
However, Police South Division Commander, Chief Inspector Ahmed Shifan, told local news outlet Sun Online that police had confiscated hard disks and related items from some of the houses.
Shifan also told the paper that the houses were searched in bid to clarify certain information required for a case police were investigating, and that all the houses were searched after obtaining a court warrant.
He declined to provide further information.
Police had previously searched the premises of a house owned by a senior activist of the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) on the island of Kulhudhufushi in Haa Dhaalu Atoll, who was arrested on allegations that he had printed ballot papers. Police also confiscated the internal hard disk of his computer.
An island council source on Kulhudhufushi at the time told Minivan News that the party was alleged to have printed oversize, laminated versions of the ballot paper to demonstrate to people how to vote.
The MDP issued a statement saying the party had sent a letter to Police Commissioner Abdulla Riyaz asking him to return the hard disk back to the MDP, as it contained important material related to the MDP presidential election campaign.
On June 24, police decided to station Special Operations (SO) officers in Addu to work with the Thinadhoo police station and establish “peace and security” for the election.
On February 7, 2012, SO officers among others instigated a violent mutiny, assaulted government supporters, ransacked the ruling Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) Haruge (meeting hall), staged a protest at the Republic Square demanding the resignation of then-President Mohamed Nasheed, clashed with soldiers and stormed the national broadcaster in the hours immediately preceding Nasheed’s controversial resignation.
Moreover, on February 8, 2012 SO officers brutally beat supporters of the deposed MDP during a heavy-handed crackdown of a protest march led by Nasheed, who had announced that his resignation the previous day was made “under duress.”
Mayor of Addu City Abdulla ‘Soabe’ Sodiq did not respond to Minivan News at time of press.
“Most of the million tourists who visit the Maldives every year leave without seeing even a hint of the political violence that has shaken the country over the past few years,” writes Eric Randolph for Foreign Affairs.
“Sipping cocktails in secluded island resorts, one would be hard-pressed to imagine that the islanders were, until five years ago, ruled by Asia’s longest-running dictatorship, that hundreds have been seriously injured in street clashes and at least one senior politician stabbed to death in the street in recent years, and that hard-line political Islamists helped to topple the country’s first-ever democratically elected president only last year.
It can also be difficult to believe that what happens here matters to the rest of the world. But stability in the Maldives — a Sunni Muslim nation of 300,000 people scattered across almost 1,200 islands in the middle of the Indian Ocean — is important. The country lies on a major trade route between East Africa and China and could function either as a bulwark against piracy and smuggling or part of the problem.
It also demonstrates the danger of Saudi-funded clerics spreading Islamic militancy to once-moderate Muslim countries, potentially threatening neighboring countries such as India. Finally, as the Maldives holds its first post-coup election, it offers important lessons for other nations in transition. Indeed, the challenges it has faced since introducing its new constitution in 2008 — dealing with the legacy of past authoritarianism and managing the threats unleashed by democracy — reflect those of other countries undergoing rapid change, from Burma to Egypt and beyond.”
(0)Dislikes
(0)
