Tag: gayoom

Comment: Let them eat cake

As the world watches the escalation of violence in the Maldives, the media, both nationally and internationally, has focused on the major characters in this unfolding drama. A corrupt government headed by an aging dictator was, for a short period, defeated by a popular movement led by a relentless activist, recognised for his fearless and uncompromising struggle to change the system.

However, the old regime was returned to power by the coup on February 7, barely four years after the previous government was established through a popular democratic movement. This is the stuff of Hollywood movies, but the script is still being written…

Democracy or Oligarchy? The dictionary definitions of these conflicting ideologies do not clearly reflect the real reasons behind the political struggle and the recent coup in the Maldives. It is not primarily a drama of personalities, as some of the media interviewers have portrayed it. It is a struggle between an oligarchy doggedly maintaining its privileges and a growing number of Maldivians who refuse to be beaten or intimidated into submission. Baton clashes with belief. Power clashes with powerlessness. And most importantly, privilege for the few clashes with justice for all.

For centuries, pre-eminence in government has been synonymous with privilege in the Maldives; and the privileged few used their power to do little other than to preserve their position and lifestyle. Gayoom, who was educated in the Middle East, came to power with such promise of change, but managed only to perpetuate an Arabian Nights style of governance.

Under him, the Maldivian government continued to be inward looking. The rule of the privileged few continued to be the norm. Thirty years of exploitation and repression under Gayoom left the country economically and emotionally bankrupt. The social results of this are seen in the plethora of problems that the Maldives faces today. One outstanding example is the neglect of the atolls- the economic backbone of the country.

While members of the privileged oligarchy lived the lifestyle of the rich and famous funded by the country’s earnings and the aid that was poured into the country to assist its development, there was a deliberate neglect of the islands outside the capital Male and their need for education, health care, and employment. This neglect led directly to the beleaguered state of Male today. Thousands upon thousands of Maldivians go to live in Male, to work and educate their children. Today, Male is one of the most crowded and polluted cities in the world. Privilege, married to self- interest, leaves long, dark shadows.

Privilege also goes hand in hand with exclusiveness and a strong sense of entitlement as evidenced by Gayoom’s regime. State money that was the right of all citizens was spent on personal aggrandizement. ‘Theemuge’- Gayoom’s presidential palace- and the millions of public money spent on it, is a symbol of corruption and excess that will stay with us for many years. However, the platoon of luxury yachts and the lifestyle enjoyed by his family and friends were not seen by them as a result of embezzlement, but a reflection of what they were justifiably entitled to.

Such self-deceit went further. Just as the colonial powers and the Christian missionaries of the past justified their dealings with the indigenous people of the colonies as humanitarian and ethically sound, the regime justified its way of doing things as enlightened and for the public good. For years, the old regime has argued that the Maldives was not ready for Democracy; this became a self-fulfilling prophecy.

This style of archaic thinking assumes that change for the better can only happen when it follows a time line that suits those who are opposed to any change which threatens their privileged lifestyle. The return to that regime suggests that Gayoom is of the belief that the country will not be ready for such a change in the life time of his children either! The truth is that any major progress in human history, such as the growth of Islam in its early years, the development of the parliamentary system or the emancipation of women in the West, is achieved with pain and commitment. When the oligarchy takes the moral high ground, it asserts that the ordinary public is at a lower level of evolution- incapable of rational or intelligent behaviour. Will the regime now destroy the schools, keep economic power in the hands of the few, and then tell the many that they are too ignorant for Democracy?

“Let them eat cake” is a well-known quotation possibly misattributed to Marie Antoinette, the wife of Louis XVI, whose regime was toppled in the French Revolution. The queen, who had indulged in a lifestyle of huge affluence was told that the peasants had no bread; bread being the staple food of the French peasantry and the only food they could afford. The queen’s reply illustrates her lack of understanding of the predicament of the poverty-stricken population.

Privilege is characterised by this sheer obliviousness to the concerns and opinions of the less fortunate. Thus the February 7 coup in the Maldives is not merely the effort of an old regime to reinvent itself, but it is a deliberate and belligerent signal that the privileged regime and its supporters can do what they please regardless of what the ordinary citizen feels. It is an overwhelming show of strength: they can depose a legitimately elected president, they can beat people, including elected representatives, on the street and they can wipe the slate clean for those who have stolen from the country or committed grave crimes against the Maldivian people. It is a show of huge indifference.

There is nothing that testifies to this attitude more than the employment of Abdulla Riyaz as Police Commissioner and Hussain Waheed as his deputy. Even the least informed of the Maldivians understand that these people were the driving force behind the horrifying escalation of police brutality under Gayoom.

An oligarchy, such as the one in power in the Maldives, is unable to sustain itself on its own. Maintaining antiquated rules of behaviour and supressing the beliefs of the populace is increasingly difficult in the age of the internet and social networking. Unholy alliances have to be made and the regime under Gayoom relied on the police to stay in power.

In the minds of many Maldivians, the name Gayoom is synonymous with police brutality and torture and ill treatment of political prisoners. It is not surprising that the most committed detractors of Gayoom’s regime and its scarcely disguised puppets in the present administration are those who have been at the receiving end of the inhumane treatment. In the short period of time when Maldives was ruled by a democratically elected president, this reliance on the police to enforce compliance disappeared. It is possible, given time, it may have changed not only the way the people perceive the police, but also the way the police saw their own place in the community – perhaps as the caretakers of a more humane and compassionate society.

However, the February coup has introduced a more sinister note into this unholy alliance between those in power and those who help uphold this power through the use of fear and force. This time, the allegiance of a number of police and military has been purchased. It is not difficult to conceive of a future Maldivian police force, with shifting allegiances and well-honed negotiating powers, cutting the best deal for themselves. Less obvious, but yet more insidious, is the effect of using the police to uphold the rule of the few. T

The Maldives is a small country, and much of its social functioning is based on connectedness; the type of face to face relationships which unite and hold small communities together. Senior police officers, bribed by a handful of rich supporters of the regime, have ordered the juniors officers to beat their sisters, brothers, uncles and aunts. These are ordinary people who have little to gain by the power-play of their superiors.

Recent events in the Maldives also highlight another of the problems that privileged oligarchies have to address. No modern oligarchy has managed to completely obliterate social mobility. The ambitions of small groups of people who fight their way up the through private enterprise have to be addressed. The nouveaux riches of the Maldives have reached a stage where some of them are starting to question years of hard work which has not afforded them the privileges and influence to which they have aspired. Although oligarchies, such as the present regime, do not welcome new blood with open arms, they do manipulate it.

The coup represents an outcome of synchronicity – where the needs of the oligarchy and the aspirations of a small group of rich resort owners struck a meeting point. When in power, the Maldivian Democratic Party introduced a system of taxation that did not please some of the wealthy resort owners as well as low end tourism that would open up the industry to ordinary Maldivians. These efforts by a people’s government to improve the lot of the ordinary Maldivians were a huge threat to a small group of the rich who have enjoyed a monopoly of wealth alongside their friends in the regime.

The possibility of a law that would ensure that tourism profits in fact trickled down to the local economy by putting it through local banks, was another affront to some of the powerful resort owners. Like the members of the regime, they too have an interest in maintaining the status quo, so that both sides can continue building their own empires, be it based on power, money or influence. In aligning themselves with a cruel regime, they have tarnished their own names and become traitors to their nation.

However, oligarchic governments are also invariably threatened by a more fundamental force that is not so easily manipulated. This is the inevitable state of conflict which ensues between the power of the few and the needs of the many. Eventually, the down -trodden simply refuse to be part of the narrative and mythology perpetuated by the privileged few.

Some of the greatest upheavals of human history are testimony to this simmering sense of resentment. The French Revolution, The Russian Revolution, and the Chinese Revolution are all well documented examples of how the masses revolt against such inequalities. Inevitably the people find their voice in the figure of an individual who is prepared to be the punching bag of the powerful bureaucracies. A brown man with spindly legs wearing a dhoti makes an appearance. A black man insists that he wants his children to be judged by the strength of their character and not by the colour of their skin. An old woman refuses to sit at the back of bus and decides to break the law. An Anni appears…

Justice is a powerful threat to privileged oligarchies. Some two thousand years ago, Aristotle argued that the ordering of a society is centred on justice. No oligarchy has yet managed to convince the under-privileged majority of a nation that what is justice for the minority is also justice for the masses. And justice matters. The fundamental search of the human spirit is not, as advertisers would have us believe, to holiday on ‘the sunny side of life’. Nor is it money. It is a search for the confirmation that each individual life has meaning and each individual has a right to live in dignity. This is the point of civilised society. This is why, justice is central to the smooth functioning of any society. This is why one of the most enduring symbols of the anger against the coup of February 7 is a T-shirt that simply asks, “Where is my vote?”

This is why injustice penetrates deep into the human psyche. There is nothing that unites people more than a shared list of grievances. In more recent years, Martin Luther King Junior echoed these sentiments when he argued that, “Law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress.” Indeed, we need to worry when law and order have been unable to function effectively in the Maldives for over thirty years, due to the self-interest of a small minority of people.

Democracy or Oligarchy? This is no longer a political question. Nor is it an issue about two strong individuals. It has become a moral and ethical judgment that every Maldivian has to make. We must decide whether we are brave enough to choose ‘the road less travelled ’, make mistakes, take risks and grow towards maturity as a nation, or continue to be bullied by an oligarchy which, by its very definition, is focused on its own survival at the expense of the population.

The rest of the world also has to make a decision; the well- known words of Edmund Burke are hugely relevant to the situation in the Maldives: “All that is required for evil to prosper is for good men to do nothing.”

It is time for good men and women, both nationally and internationally, to stand by the Maldivian Democratic Party and help write the script for a new and more enlightened age of Maldivian history.
The time for action is now.

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)

“My romantic ideas of how to deal with a dictator were wrong”: Nasheed

Allowing former dictator Maumoon Abdul Gayoom to live in peace following the 2008 election was a bad decision, former President Mohamed Nasheed has told Time Magazine.

The Maldives’ experience with the remnants of autocracy should serve as a lesson for other countries in the Arab Spring said Nasheed.

“The lesson is we didn’t deal with Gayoom. That’s the obvious lesson. And my romantic ideas of how to deal with a dictator were wrong. I will agree with that,” Nasheed told Time, in a striking reversal of his magnanimity in 2008.

Nasheed observed that “you can get rid of a dictator, but you can’t get rid of a dictatorship. You can get rid of a person very easily, but the networks, the intricacies, the establishments — you have to flush them. And to do that is not an easy thing. We have to be mindful with other countries going down the same line — for instance, Egypt, Tunisia, Libya. They’ll have good elections, they’ll probably come up with a better leader. But then the dictatorship will always try to come back. And it’s going to be impossible to hold them from coming back from within the system.”

Gayoom stepped down peacefully in 2008 after losing the country’s first multi-party elections election to Nasheed, a former political prisoner who was quickly dubbed ‘South Asia’s Nelson Mandela’ by international media outlets. The peaceful transition from autocracy to democracy was held up as a model for other countries by human rights and democracy organisations, including the Commonwealth and UN.

Nasheed, despite heavy resistance from key supporters, pledged to leave Gayoom in peace, acknowledging his contribution to the development of the tourism industry and encouraging him to assume a role as a respected elder statesman.

“Be magnanimous in times of victory, and courageous in times of defeat. The test of Maldivian democracy will be how we treat our former President,” said Nasheed at the time.

His sentiments were echoed during a state visit from the President of Timor-Leste, Jose Ramos-Horta.

“I prefer to be criticised for being soft on people who committed violence in the past than be criticised for being too harsh or insensitive in putting people in jail,” said Ramos-Horta, during a visit to the Maldives in February 2010.

“Our approach fits our reality, an approach the president of the Maldives and I share – the need for magnanimity. Immediately after our independence in 1999, I said: ‘in victory be magnanimous. Don’t rub the wounds of those who feel they lost. Make them feel they won, also.’”

Exactly two years later Ramos-Horta would become the only world leader to condemn “the obvious coup d’état”, and the “unsettling silence of big powers”.

After the 2008 election Gayoom continued to lead his Dhivehi Rayithunge Party (DRP), but in January 2010 announced his intention to bow out of politics ahead of the DRP congress, anointing Ahmed Thasmeen Ali as his successor and become the party’s ‘Supreme Leader’.

“The Maldives is a young country, and only will progress if youth become involved in politics and leadership,” the 72 year-old said during a live press conference on January 25, 2010.

“I am not young any more. I have spent many years in office, and I want to spend time with my family. I need to give the younger generation the opportunity [to lead the party] – they are capable,” Gayoom said.

A senior government source at the time observed that Gayoom’s announcement was not met with celebration by the country’s leadership.

“There is no jubilation here. It was very hard on some people when Gayoom publicly denied he ever harmed anyone,” the source said.

With Gayoom absent from the DRP, a power struggle quickly erupted between the vigorously uncompromising faction of Umar Naseer, a former policeman, and Thasmeen’s mellower, more conciliatory approach to opposition politics. The struggle came to a head with the expulsion of Naseer from the party in late 2010, a decision that sparked Gayoom’s return to active politics with a dramatic attack on Thasmeen’s leadership in a 12 page open letter.

Backed into a corner by the party’s Supreme Leader, Thasmeen did not respond, while the infighting – occasionally violent – culminated in Gayoom’s faction splitting from the party and forming the Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM), backed by the People’s Alliance (PA) of his half-brother, MP Abdulla Yameen.

The PPM actively led protests in the lead up to Nasheed’s downfall on February 7, opposing everything from the “idolatrous” SAARC country monuments in Addu to Nasheed’s detention of Criminal Court Judge Abdulla Mohamed, an ill-fated last-ditch attempt to reform the judiciary.

Speaking to Time Magazine this week, Nasheed said he had pushed against a “witch hunt” after coming to office: “We didn’t want to purge the military, we didn’t want to purge the police.”

“There were mistakes,” he confessed. “One thing the international community finds it difficult to understand was the arresting of the judge. He asked a child to re-enact a child-abuse case in the court. The whole country was disgusted by it. The very next week, he gives an order for a murderer to be released because the Ministry of Health didn’t have a death certificate. And then [the released man] goes out and murders again. It was like releasing a hit man so he could go out and make another hit. The whole picture was getting very, very clear with gangs, drug dealers and with Gayoom and his cronies,” Nasheed told Time.

The government had begged the international community for assistance after detaining the judge, Nasheed said.

“Unfortunately, I kept on asking everyone – the Commonwealth, the EU, the Indian government – to assist us in reforming the judiciary. But they were very late in coming. And we didn’t get the necessary help from them,” he said.

“Also we were bringing in reforms very rapidly. We were liberalising the outlook of the country very, very rapidly. Especially with Islamic radicalism. Our ideas of moderation, the moderate Islam — there were some small, entrenched sections that reacted strongly against me. I thought they were odd people here and there. But there was a core of radical Islamists who fueled the coup through media and harping on about how un-Islamic I am. I must confess, I’m not the most pious of the people. But I am a strong believer.”

Nasheed predicted that Gayoom would make a move for the presidency “when he thinks it’s in his hand, when he feels the field is skewed enough in his favor.”

“His designs are to have a stronger hold on power. He would avoid an election. I am sure he would avoid the scheduled election in 2013 as well. He’d try to push back the elections as much as they can. He would talk in words that the international community will like. We had elections in 2008, 2009, 2011 that were all free and fair. But suddenly the US government is saying, ‘Oh Gayoom says, there might be a problem with the election commission.’

“This is very strange. At the same time, [Gayoom] will start running things through the military. My fear is that we’re not going back to pre-2008 Maldives. We’re going back to pre-2008 other countries, to Pakistan, perhaps, where the military becomes so strong that they call the shots.”

Nasheed said he was “shocked” at the speed with which the US, India and other countries recognised the new government, especially after “we did so much to encourage internationalism, encourage liberalism, to bring Indian investment — to get rid of anti-India phobia. We tried to have good relations. But when push came to shove, we ended up in the wrong. Somehow we were not the right people to talk to. If you want to be a regional leader, you must be sensible. And consistent. And you should lead. They should protect democracy, and they should be on the side of democrats and human rights.”

Nasheed said they tried to encourage him to form a national unity government, “but my point is, why should we try to unify the dictatorship? The coup is not unifying the country – it’s bringing back the old dictatorship. We didn’t want to have a part in it. We beat them in the elections. It’s wrong to talk about governing with Gayoom because he was rejected by the people.”

The international community had slowly begun realigning itself after realising that the ousted government was refusing to be supressed, and had backed early elections – “they should have been the first to say it, not me,” Nasheed noted.

India in particular “has the means” to push for early elections, Nasheed observed.

When those are held, “I am very, very confident that the people will decide upon us. And the thing is not who wins an election – it’s the fact that you have to have one. It’s the fact that a government is formed through the people.”

Read the full interview in Time Magazine

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

UN human rights trust fund to help small island states

The UN Human Rights Council has established a trust fund to help small island states and Least Developed Countries to more effectively engage with and benefit from the international human rights system, the Foreign Ministry has stated, crediting the Maldives, Morocco and Mauritius for securing the fund.

The UN resolution establishing the Fund was adopted by consensus and with 111 cosponsors – a record number for a UN Human Rights Council resolution, the ministry noted in a statement.

Introducing the motion, Iruthisham Adam, Permanent Representative of the Maldives to the UN in Geneva, noted the severe financial, human and technical capacity constraints facing small island states, “constraints which prevent them from benefiting fully from the international human rights system.”

She noted that the new Trust Fund would help level the playing field and enable SIDS “to take their rightful place at the very centre of Human Rights Council debates and mechanisms”.

The fund’s activities will include fellowships and financial support for junior staff to attend three month work placements at their ministries in Geneva, travel support to help foreign ministry staff participate in UN Human Rights Council sessions, and capacity building for diplomats in international human rights law.

Daughter of Maumoon Abdul Gayoom and newly-appointed State Minister for Foreign Affairs, Dunya Maumoon, said: “We hope this new UN Trust Fund will help improve the capacity of the Maldives and other SIDS to participate fully in the international human rights system and to more effectively implement international human rights obligations.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

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

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

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

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

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

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

“My father wants to be behind the scenes”

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

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

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Leaked report reveals PR firm Hill & Knowlton responsible for majority of pre-2008 democratic reform

New York-headquartered public relations firm Hill & Knowlton (H&K) was responsible for recommending – and in some cases implementing – most of the pre-2008 democratic reform in the Maldives, according to details in a leaked 2003 report commissioned by then-President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom.

The company – one of the two largest PR companies in the world, representing groups as diverse as IBM, the Church of Scientology and the Ladies’ Home Journal – has come under criticism for working to improve the reputations of governments accused of human rights violations, including Indonesia and Turkey.

However, H&K’s report on the Maldives, titled ‘Issues audit and communications strategy for the Government of the Maldives’, reveals that the firm was responsible for much of the human rights and governance reform that paved the way for the country’s first democratic election in 2008.

The vast majority of recommendations in the report were subsequently implemented, portraying Gayoom as mellowing in the lead up to 2008 following the autocratic excesses of his 30 year rule.

H&K’s recommendations included the separation of the security forces into police, military and correctional institutions, constitutional reform and the introduction of multi-party democracy, strategies for the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM), reform of the Majlis, reform of the criminal justice system, including an end to the practice of flogging, and even the introduction of religious freedom.

The report opens acknowledging that the events of September 19, 2003 – unprecedented civil unrest sparked by the custodial death of Evan Naseem – were a “watershed” moment in Maldivian history, “and one after which nothing will ever be the same.”

“Perceptions of its significance are more diverse. Some believe it is a signal that the seal has now been broken and that further unrest could well follow. Others believe it was an understandable and genuine outlet of anger, yet one which can be avoided in the future, should meaningful reforms be introduced.  Yet others, point to an orchestrated event influenced by shadowy forces seeking regime change and which are backed by religious fundamentalists,” H&K stated, in 2003.

“Despite such divergences in views, what is clear, though, is that expectations have now been raised and presidential promises made; the delivery of meaningful reform is now required.”

The report, produced by H&K consultants Andrew Jonathan Pharoah, Timothy Francis Fallon and Biswajit Dasgupta following extensive meetings and consultations across Maldivian society, contains both a situational analysis of key issues and recommendations for Gayoom’s government on how to address them.

Human rights abuses

Stakeholders consulted by H&K were “almost unanimous” that human rights abuses were occurring in the Maldives. However, these abuses were in many cases believed “to be individual, not institutional.”

Outside the then nascent Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP), complaints about arbitrary arrest and freedom of expression “were dismissed as being the hyperbole or outright lies of malcontents and trouble makers”.

H&K summarises the concerns of three institutions: Amnesty International, the UN Commission on Human Rights, and the US State Department.

“Critics of the Government continued to be detained, or imprisoned following unfair trials and should be regarded as prisoners of conscience. Government portrays convictions as being a result of criminal activities, but the real reason is as a result of political opposition,” H&K notes, citing Amnesty. The human rights organisation’s report is “littered with a number of individual case-study examples underpinning the accusations,” H&K adds.

The Maldives had meanwhile provided almost no information to the UN Commission on Human Rights, when challenged on issues such as racial discrimination.

“The Maldivian response had been to state that ‘no form of racial discrimination exists in the Maldives based on race or any other differences among the population’, and that ‘therefore, no specific legislation is required to implement the provisions of the Convention,” H&K cites.

The US State Department noted “unconfirmed reports of beatings or other mistreatment of persons in police custody during the year”, but noted that food and housing conditions at Maafushi prison were “generally adequate”.

The State Department’s opinion of the country’s media – which reflected few concerns other than politicisation of ownership – was “overly generous”, H&K suggested.

“Our own verdict was that the local media appeared to be uncritical, lacking any desire towards investigative journalism and averse to producing hard-hitting stories.

“Perceptually, the media was regarded by some as a Government mouthpiece and the close connections / ownership by the same did not help its cause in portraying itself as being an independent scrutineer. A kinder view may be that the media has limited resources and did not regard its job as doing the country down.

“ It was also suggested that negative perceptions were exacerbated as a result of the profession not being seen as a desirable career to enter. Consequently, the career did not attract the cream of the crop it is questionable whether there are many graduates in the profession.”

To address human rights issues, H&K recommended that HRCM be given a “clear and transparent mandate” with specific objectives and benchmarks, audited “by third parties such as Amnesty.”

“The Commission should play a key role in responding to the individual cases outlined by Amnesty International and others,” H&K suggested, and show a “clear and comprehensive communications structure” with “findings/initiatives widely publicised.”

Constitutional Reform

“Although the Maldives would like to be described as a young liberal Muslim democracy, the perception in the outside world perhaps not match this description,” H&K suggests.

“Critics have begun voicing disgruntlement. They describe an autocratic, six-term President, who does not allow any challenge to his leadership and who presides over a Parliament formed through bribery, corruption and fear.”

The agency urged Gayoom to allow multi-party democracy, stating that his existing position “is untenable, unsustainable and causing significant damage to perceptions of democracy.”

“To the external world there is an idealistic consensus that those who are willing to sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither liberty nor security. Moreover, the process gives the impression of a political elite which feels that it knows best,” H&K writes.

Parliament was meanwhile considered manifestly corrupt, as particularly on the islands H&K “got the impression that the process of candidates buying votes was commonplace and expected. Indeed, the agency heard some concern that the price of votes was going up and candidates had to spend way more than they did previously to secure the same votes!”

H&K urged “comprehensive reformation of the single candidate Presidential election system, with the adoption of a multi-candidate process”, and “a comprehensive reform of the Maldivian constitution to the extent whereby any political party can operate with complete freedom.”

The role of the Majlis was to be reviewed and given “more independence with greater powers of scrutiny”.

A further H&K recommendation – which was not implemented, and now seems somewhat prescient – was that “the office of an independent ombudsman should be introduced to investigate accusations of wrongdoing on the part of Majlis and Ministers.”

Criminal justice system

H&K called for “fundamental reform” of the criminal justice system, in which it said “there was little to no faith”: “Corruption is viewed as embedded, or alternatively justice is seen as being dispensed arbitrarily.”

“Structurally, there is concern at the signal sent out in having the President as the highest figure within the judiciary and also the executive. Similarly, there is also concern that the President has responsibility for the judicial appointments system and indeed the ages and experience of judges, who are all young and deemed inexperienced,” H&K wrote.

The consultants also noted that “despite his position, the President is not supposed to involve himself directly in the affairs of the judiciary. Yet, the President does review decisions – albeit through a three-man commission. Whilst this may have been established with the best of intentions, that the Commission has been described as ‘slow and lethargic’, ‘lacking in transparency and having no clear mandate’ only adds to the concerns.”

Basing the legal system on a combination of Sharia Law and 1968 Civil Law did not cause issues “in and of itself”, noting that it did not include punishments “which would be considered unacceptable in liberal democracies, such as stoning to death or amputations.”

Nonetheless, an end to the practice of flogging “would be an easy win”, H&K suggested.

As for judicial procedure, the accused “are often not given access to pen and paper and do not have enough time to prepare their case”, and “perversely, we also understand that neither are the police required to keep a police diary. It has also been claimed that the accused are not made aware of the full extent of the charges levelled against them (until they are in court) and that often they will not be informed of the date of their trial until the day itself. Anecdotal evidence also exists that prisoners have been in court charged with one offence and then convicted of another.”

The justice system was based on confession, “and the the police service believes that prisoners need to be held longer in order that they can extract a confession which is necessary to obtain a conviction – even when they believe forensic (and other) evidence may suffice.

“There is the perception that the police make clear to suspects that until they deliver a confession they will be held in prison indefinitely. There are also concerns that the need for a confession is one of the driving forces which leads to torture and or police brutality against prisoners.”

As a result, 90 percent of the prison population had confessed to their crime, H&K observed.

Recommendations for the reform of the criminal justice system included ending flogging and asking HRCM to review the practice of banishment: “Amnesty believes persons banished often have to undergo hard labour with an insufficient daily allowance for more than one meal a day. Women are also said to be easy targets for harassment and sexual abuse by village men.”

Furthermore, “the President must remove himself completely and permanently from any direct or indirect control or influence with regards to the Criminal Justice System, and that this position must be open to review/audit at any time by third party agencies.”

Police, NSS and correctional forces

There was, H&K said, “a common perception that the police considered themselves to be above the law – albeit, the general consensus was that abuses were considered individual rather than institutional. Moreover, that corruption exists amongst correctional guards was conceded at the highest levels.”

“In particular, there were a number of accusations of abuse of power. Amnesty, for example, points to a failure to return equipment after searches (which then leads to a loss of livelihoods), and also of widespread torture, ill treatment in prisons and the forcing of confessions.”

Joint training and the use of the same uniform at the time led to a crisis of identity among the security forces and, for the police, “a martial mindset which whilst suited to an armed forces, was felt not appropriate for policing.”

H&K recommended a “clear separation of duties and responsibilities assigned to the both the National Security Service and the Police Force”, with separate training facilities and “visible differences” in “look and operational style”. It also called for an “urgent review” of the competency of correctional officers.

Religious freedom

H&K’s most controversial recommendation was “that the Maldivian Government move as a matter of urgency towards a society and constituency whereby there is complete religious freedom.”

“One of the first – and most striking impressions – visitors to the Maldives receive is given to them when filling in the arrivals card. On the back, amongst hard hitting warnings about bringing drugs, spearguns and pornographic materials to the islands, stands further warnings forbidding ‘items of idolatry’ and ‘items contrary to Islam’,” H&K observed.

“The agency has seen reports in the media of bibles, effigies of Christ, Buddha and Krishna, being taken from visitors during baggage searches on arrival. Yet, through discussions we understand that, whilst the country is keen to preserve its Muslim traditions and forbids public worship of other religions, private worship is allowed. In this context, we were told, such items should not be being confiscated,” H&K stated.

The Maldives was in contravention of article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights concerning religious freedom, H&K noted, suggesting that “ordinarily [we would] make the recommendation that the Maldives change its laws and practices accordingly. However, we are aware that, regrettably, there is unlikely to be any appetite for this. Indeed, it could be argued that such a move could further encourage the Islamic fundamentalists who would regard as it as sign that the Government had sold out.”

Noting the US State Department’s concerns over freedom of expression, detention and counselling of potential apostates and detention and expulsion of foreigners for proselytising, H&K said it “ believes that this attitude is untenable and unsustainable alongside any claim to be in accord with human rights.”

“Notwithstanding the very clear infringement of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the situation is manifestly unfair to the citizens of the Maldives who may wish to practice other religions. Indeed, it is worth noting that the Maldives has not always been a Muslim country,” H&K stated.

“Whilst the agency can accept that the Maldives is keen to maintain its Muslim traditions, some form of compromise – perhaps along the current lines – should be adopted.”

Following the government’s unfavourable response to this suggestion, and noting “significant resistance”, H&K  subsequently offered supplementary recommendations, including replacing hostile warnings on boarding cards with a notice “that private worship is permitted” – noting that “these will only be seen by foreigners”, “Take steps to make clear to diplomatic channels and holiday tour groups and reps that private worship of other religions is permitted”, and “Encourage authorities to turn a blind eye to incidences of Maldivians worshipping other faiths in private – be it individual or group worship.”

Action plan

H&K outlines a strategic program “to achieve balanced coverage of the Maldives and recognition for the very real changes which are being made by the Government.”

“In this regard, we need to be prepared for people to be critical of what we do and we must recognise that there are a number of people who will be implacably imposed to whatever the Government does.”

H&K proposes a “reactive, rapid rebuttal” strategy, “to ensure that no inaccuracies are allowed to stand without an attempt at rebutting them having been made.”

“There is also undoubtedly also a need to change the culture of communications. At present, we have witnessed a desire to engage only on the Maldives’ own terms,” H&K observes.

“We acknowledge concerns that journalists may twist stories and perhaps include comment from critics. However, if the journalists are intending to do this – they will go ahead regardless of whether or not they are proactively engaged. Better then at least to have the opportunity to put the story across with our own messages.”

“Second, not giving interviews will not help in demonstrating openness and transparency which are prerequisites for messages communicated to be believed. Third, from our experiences we have seen that changing perceptions is a case of turning the proverbial oil tanker; it takes time and results are not immediate. In any event engagement will need to take place at some stage – at least if we start now, we can begin to draw a line and at least try tackling the issues on the front foot.

“Fourth, even if journalists were to misreport the story, it provides us with a platform with which to go higher up the ladder and take issue with managers or editors. In this way, even were stories not to be retracted, corrected or the Maldives given a chance to respond, it nevertheless helps to ensure that in the future greater care and attention will be given to reporting.”

H&K puts forward a number of journalists to specifically target, and offer press visits to the Maldives.

“In organising the itinerary for such a trip it is important that we enable those attending to get a balanced picture of what is going on and therefore we must be prepared for them to meet with people who are to some extent critical of Government,” H&K stated.

“This is often quite a difficult step for Governments to overcome but unless we do this we believe journalists may feel we are trying to hide the truth from them. We should not expect that a journalist will not ask us difficult questions nor have relations with others who are critical.”

The journalists included: Dilip Ganguly (Associated Press), Krishan Francis (Associated Press), Zack Ijabbar (The Island, Sri Lanka) Warren Fernandez (Foreign Editor, Straight Times), Sunday Leader, Sri Lanka, Scott McDonald, (Reuters Colombo), Lindsay Beck, (Reuters Colombo), Chris Lockwood (Asia Editor, Economist), Catherine Philp (Times South Asia Correspondent in New Delhi), Alex Spillius (South-East Asia Correspondent, Daily Telegraph/Sunday Telegraph), Randeep Ramesh (Guardian, Delhi), Kathy Marks and Mary Dejevsky (The Independent/Independent on Sunday), Tom Walker (The Sunday Times), Tracy McVeigh (Observer), Khozem Merchant (Financial Times) and Rita Penn with BBC World.

Minivan News was not among the media targeted. The edits of H&K’s inaugural ‘e-newsletter’ in 2005, also obtained by Minivan News, described Minivan News as a “clandestine newsletter”.

“The peaceful and positive tone of the President’s address was in stark contrast to the incendiary language of certain sectors of the Maldivian press over the past week, who were calling for and even encouraging violent demonstrations to coincide with our National Day,” H&K’s newsletter states.

“If we could rephrase this,” reads the edit. “Many locals do not attach legitimacy to Minivan News; they only recognise as press what is in circulation in the country under registration. Hence, it may cause an uproar. ‘Clandestine newsletter’ maybe, your call.”

Reaction

The H&K report corroborates comments made by former Foreign Minister Dr Ahmed Shaheed in a Q&A with Minivan News in June 2011, following his appointment as UN Special Rapporteur on Iran.

“I do not know the motives of Gayoom in hiring Hill & Knowlton,” Dr Shaheed told Minivan News at the time.

“But my links with them were on the basis that they would contribute to reform in the Maldives. So I agreed to be a liaison person with them, but only if they would work on a governance reform project,” he explained.

“Their first task was an audit of governance in the country: meeting various stake-holders, gauging public perception and making recommendations on what ought to be done. Their recommendation was that we needed to implement rapid political reforms, including political pluralism.”

Based on the 2003 report, Gayoom engaged H&K on a longer-term basis, Dr Shaheed explained.

“This entailed assisting him with reforms internally, and projecting those reforms externally. It was not purely a PR function and it did entail real policy prescriptions for Gayoom,” he said.

Dr Shaheed confirmed that H&K was not just making recommendations, but actively writing policies for Gayoom’s government.

“When you are in office for 30 years and your ministers and associates make recommendations to you, you don’t believe them. But if you have a posh firm from London making recommendations, you tend to believe them,” Dr Shaheed said. “And Gayoom did.”

“Things that Gayoom did on their recommendation included separating the army from the police, a whole raft of reforms on judicial function, prison reform, constitutional reform – all these things were done at their request.

“The only H&K recommendations he left out – Hill & Knowlton wanted [Gayoom’s half brother and STO Chairman] Yameen and the then Police Chief (Adam Zahir) sacked, and they also suggested that freedom of religion was something that was internationally demanded,” he said.

“Of course, there’s no way any government here can introduce freedom of religion, and H&K’s usefulness finally ended when they recommended Yameen be removed – at that point Gayoom stopped listening to them.”

Download the full H&K 2003 report (English)

Download the H&K recommendations (English)

Likes(1)Dislikes(0)

PPM members files two cases against Nasheed

Former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom’s Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM)’s two members have filed cases requesting the police to investigate into major breach of laws committed by former President Mohamed Nasheed during his short-lived tenure, local newspaper Haveeru has reported.

According to Haveeru, the first case filed by the two PPM members Ahmed “Maaz” Saleem and Ahmed Siddeeq include the alleged transgression against the judiciary by locking up of the Supreme Court in 2008, allowing police entry into Judicial Service Commission (JSC), illegally appointing JSC members, ordering the removal of the interim Chief Justice.

The other case is about the leasing of Male’ International Airport to India’s GMR in 2010 for 50 years.

Saleem claimed that the filing of the cases had been delayed as it was understood that Nasheed would not have allowed the police to carry out the investigations, reported Haveeru.

“After Nasheed has resigned all institutions have now become independent and without any political influence. Hence I have filed the case to carry out a probe in accordance with the law,” Haveeru quoted Saleem as saying.

Siddeeq meanwhile has said that further constitutional violations by the Former President is under evaluation and will be filed with the police for subsequent investigation.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Gayoom: “I had no role in the change of government”, says no to early elections

Former President and Leader of Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM) Maumoon Abdul Gayoom has claimed “I had no role in the change of government”, while dismissing the accusations of his involvement in the ousting of his successor Mohamed Nasheed on February 7 as “baseless rumors”.

Nasheed’s Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) alleges that Gayoom was at the centre organising what the party insists was a bloodless coup d’état in which elements of police and Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) were bribed to align with then-opposition demonstrators led by Gayoom’s PPM party forcing Nasheed to resign on February 7.

However, after returning to Maldives on Monday night from an unofficial trip to Malaysia, Gayoom defended himself claiming that “I had never attempted to over throw Nasheed’s government illegally or outside legal bounds”.

“I had no role in the change of government and such rumours are baseless,” Gayoom further claimed.

However, he noted that his party had protested within the legal bounds to resist unlawful acts of the government.

Meanwhile, Gayoom – whose 30-year-old rule came to an end after he lost the country’s first multiparty elections to Nasheed in 2008 – objected to MDP’s calls for early elections citing that the constitution gives “no room” for it.

He quoted the constitution’s stipulations which state elections must be held once in every five years or it shall be called if both the President and the Vice-President resign simultaneously or their offices become vacant at the same time.

Furthermore, noting that if the President resigns for any reason the constitution allows the Vice President to assume office and continue the remainder of his predecessor’s term – Gayoom said, “Waheed has been sworn in constitutionally”.

“Therefore, there is no room for an [early] election according to the constitution and in my opinion neither does politically.” Gayoom concluded, pledging full support to Waheed’s administration which is now run by a cabinet stacked with majority Gayoom loyalists.

Thousand of supporters of Gayoom gathered at the Republican Square and on the streets to welcome Gayoom, while  Minivan News observed that security was elevated in the area and Gayoom was taken to his residence in a defence force car.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

‘Coup of opportunity’ derails Maldivian democracy: Reuters

It was an ordinary blue felt pen, and not a bullet, that killed Mohamed Nasheed’s term as the first democratically elected president of the Maldives, writes Bryson Hull for Reuters.

“After rising to acclaim as a champion of democracy and action against climate change, Nasheed is now back on the streets where he led a nearly two-decade campaign to bring full democracy to an archipelago ruled more like a sultanate.

A Reuters investigation, drawing on more than a dozen interviews including with witnesses who have not spoken out before, reveals a coup of opportunity that capitalised on opposition discontent, political missteps and police and troops loyal to the old order.

Nasheed says a cabal of former regime strongmen conspired with opposition leaders to force him to make a choice: resign in two hours, or face the introduction of live ammunition into a duel between loyal and rebelling security forces, then only being fought with batons and rubber bullets.

“The generals were in league with the mutinous police,” Nasheed said at a recent news conference, acknowledging that he had erred in not clearing out officers loyal to Gayoom.

“We never did a purge of the military. We have a history of murdering our former leaders and I wanted to change that.”

Even as the Commonwealth urges an investigation and new President Waheed has proposed a presidential commission to investigate his own ascendancy, military leaders have taken no chances.

They have emptied the four armories around Male and put the weapons inside the MNDF headquarters after some tense squabbles between factions inside the forces, three sources told Reuters.

This week, the criminal court threw out several graft cases against opposition figures, a sign of the old impunity provided by a pliable and poorly educated judiciary.

Nasheed’s supporters remain on the streets in peaceful protest, demanding an election be held before it is due in October 2013, which the new president has said he will do if the conditions are right.

“I think it is important that democracy be upheld there, and there is concern that the president (Waheed) might find himself heavily influenced by the previous Gayoom regime,” a diplomat from a Commonwealth country told Reuters.

“There must be no return to the pre-2008 days. The importance of the early elections it to ensure there is a clear democratic mandate.”

Read more

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Commonwealth suspends Maldives from CMAG, calls for “formal” investigation with “international participation”

The Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG) has refrained from declaring whether the resignation of President Mohamed Nasheed was constitutional, but has called for a “formal” independent and impartial investigation with the involvement of international partners.

In a press conference held in London on Wednesday, CMAG noted the formation of an inquiry by the new Maldivian government, but said it “strongly felt that there should be international participation in any investigative mechanism, as may be mutually agreed by political parties in Maldives.”

Echoing calls from other international bodies including the European Union, the Commonwealth called on President Waheed and former President Nasheed “to commence an immediate dialogue, without preconditions, to agree on a date for early elections, which should take place within this calendar year.”

Such a dialogue, CMAG urged, “should facilitate the opening of the Majlis (parliament) session as scheduled on 1 March 2012.”

“This dialogue should lead to collaboration on the passage of the necessary constitutional amendment for the holding of early elections, as well as such legislation that needs to be passed to ensure peaceful, inclusive and credible elections,” CMAG stated.

CMAG further expressed “strong concern” at the ongoing arrest warrant issued against former President Nasheed, “and urged that this issue be addressed in order that his ability to participate fully in the electoral process is not prejudiced.”

Furthermore, “given the questions that remain about the precise circumstances of the change of government, as well as the fragility of the situation in Maldives, CMAG decided that Maldives should be placed on its formal agenda.”

The Maldives would no longer participate in the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group while it remained on the Commonwealth’s watch list, the statement added, however the country would not be suspended from the Commonwealth itself.

“The Group further agreed that, in line with the agreed parliamentary agenda and matters emerging from the dialogue, the Commonwealth should enhance its technical assistance to Maldives to help build capacity in such areas as the Judiciary and the Parliament, and that of the Elections Commission, as well as to promote adherence to democratic values and principles.

“In particular, it urged the Commonwealth to support the Elections Commission as well as to engage with all stakeholders towards ensuring the credibility and peaceful conduct of the next elections. It recommended the expeditious development of a code of conduct for political parties in the lead-up to the elections.”

Responding to questions at the London press conference, CMAG stated that the circumstances of Nasheed’s resignation “remain unclear to us” and said that “a more formal inquiry is needed, with international support.”

“Both parties have requested the help of the secretariat, and CMAG has made clear it is fully supportive and will lend what support it can.”

The Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) issued a statement on Wednesday evening “fully endorsing” CMAG’s recommendations.

“First, that an independent and impartial investigation of the events of 6-7 February should be completed in a transparent manner within a reasonable timeframe, and that there should be international participation in any investigative mechanism, as may be mutually agreed by political parties in Maldives. MDP notes that, unfortunately, Dr Waheed has already failed to comply with this recommendation,” the party said, referring to his appointment of two former ministers of Gayoom’s regime to the inquiry commission, including the former defence minister.

“Second, that key parties to the crisis should commence an immediate dialogue, without preconditions, to agree on a date for early elections, which should take place within this calendar year. The MDP remains ready to participate in serious discussions in this regard with other political parties that have a democratic mandate.”

“Third that such a dialogue should facilitate the opening of the Parliament session as scheduled on 1 March 2012, which should in turn lead to collaboration on the passage of the necessary constitutional amendment for the holding of early elections, as well as such legislation that needs to be passed to ensure peaceful, inclusive and credible elections. MDP believes securing such amendments should be the sole focus of the new parliamentary session. Other parliamentary business, including the annual Presidential Address, must be cancelled.”

“Fourth, the decision to appoint a Special Envoy to the Maldives, and the call for all sides to respect human rights and refrain from violence and incitement.”

The MDP further agreed with CMAG’s decision to suspend the country’s membership of CMAG “until such a time as the crisis is resolved and until a democratically-elected government once again holds office.”

President Mohamed Waheed Hassan meanwhile responded thanking CMAG for its recommendations, “recognising the challenges we face as a nation and the honest attempts of the National Unity Government to deal with them.”

“The CMAG recognises that progress will only be made if peace and harmony return to our streets, political parties put aside partisan advantage and put the nation first, all parties join in a genuine dialogue without preconditions.

“We have already established an Independent National Enquiry Commission look into the events surrounding the transfer of power on February 7. Clearly as it is independent it will be for them to decide if they wish to take up the generous offer of international assistance in its deliberations,” Dr Waheed said.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)