Maldives Tourism Development Corporation (MTDC) Chairman resigns from post

Maldives Tourism Development Corporation (MTDC) Chairman Faseeh Zahir, who was appointed to the post in 2012, tendered his resignation last week without indicating a reason, reports local media.

Zahir’s resignation follows a disagreement between MTCD and Club Faru management – a resort recently taken over by government-owned MTDC – that led to a “series of complications” after the Tourism Ministry “interfered,” claims an MTDC official.

Zahir’s predecessor, former MTDC Chairman Mohamed Rasheed, resigned from the post in June 2012, a month after his appointment.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Rising extremism could threaten Maldives’ tourism industry: report

Religious conservatism and extremist violence have been increasing in the Maldives over the past decade, while incidents of Maldivians joining overseas jihadist groups are becoming more common, according to a report published in the Combating Terrorism Center (CTC) Sentinel, a publication based out of the West Point military academy in the US.

The article entitled The Threat from Rising Extremism in the Maldives, observes that growing religious extremism and political uncertainty could result in more violence and negatively affect the nation’s tourism industry, which would be “devastating” to the Maldives.

“This has coincided with a number of violent attacks on liberal activists and other citizens who have expressed outspoken support for moderate religious practices,” the report notes.

If current trends continue “extremist incidents may rise, with violence targeted against the country’s more liberal citizens,” it states.

According to the report, five key factors have contributed to the growing extremism and violence:

  • the encouragement of  “more hard line Islamist elements in the country” during the 30 year autocratic rule of former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom;
  • political uncertainty;
  • an increasing number of people seeking education in foreign madrasas;
  • grassroots radicalisation through civil society and political parties;
  • escalating extremist incidents of violence and involvement with jihadist groups.

“The country has already suffered one terrorist attack targeting foreign tourists, and a number of Maldivians have traveled to Pakistan’s tribal areas to receive jihadist training. Moreover, evidence exists that jihadists tried to form a terrorist group in the country in 2007-2008,” the report states.

The study recommends that Maldivian political and religious developments be followed closely.

Encouraging of hard line Islamic elements

Islam was introduced to the Maldives in the 12th century and subsequent religious practices have been the “moderate, more liberal form of the religion”.

“Yet, during Gayoom’s three decade autocratic rule, the Egyptian-trained religious scholar enacted a number of measures that, at least inadvertently, encouraged more hard line Islamist elements in the country,” the report concluded.

“From imposing a ban on Christian missionary radio to apprehending migrant service providers for allegedly preaching and practicing their own religion, Gayoom’s regime initiated an era of state-backed religious intolerance and radicalisation in the Maldives.”

The Protection of Religious Unity Act, passed in 1994, mandated that no other religion but Islam could be practiced.

In 1996, Gayoom constituted the Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs, renamed the Ministry of Islamic Affairs in 2008, to preside over religious affairs in the Maldives.

“This body of clerics pressured the government to carry out moral and cultural policing of alleged “anti-Islamic activities”,” the report states.

For example, in 2008 the Ministry requested police “ban nightclubs and discotheques for New Year’s Eve celebrations because they were contrary to Islam”.

“By the end of Gayoom’s time in office in 2008, the dress code for women had grown increasingly conservative, and more and more men grew out their beards,” the report states.

Women now dress more conservatively with fewer brightly colored clothes. Instead they “increasingly wear black robes and headscarves and on more conservative islands such as Himandhoo, women wear black abayas and face veils,” it added.

Political uncertainty

The democratic transition “gave a greater voice to religious conservatives and those calling for the rigid implementation of Shari`a (Islamic law) in the Maldives,” states the report. “This became especially evident following the implementation of political reforms and the transition to multi-party democracy in 2008.”

The first democratic presidential elections in the Maldives were held in 2008, with Mohamed Nasheed defeating Gayoom in the second round with 54 percent of the votes.

However, the Nasheed administration was accused of defiling Islam by “promoting Western ideals and culture and restricted the spread of more austere Islamic practices,” the article notes.

This resulted in the December 2011 “Defend Islam” protests led by opposition political parties, religious groups, civil society organisations and thousands of supporters in the country’s capital, Male’.

These protests “unleashed a chain of events that culminated in a bloodless coup on February 7, 2012 that toppled the Maldives’ first democratically-elected government,” declared the study.

Appeal of education in foreign madrasas

Education in foreign madrasas has also contributed to growing extremism within the Maldives, with students “unwittingly attending more radical madrasas” and preaching these views upon their return.

“The offer of free education in madrasas in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia is widely acknowledged as a core means of radicalising Maldivians locally, with well-meaning parents sending their children off on scholarships to ‘study Islam’,” the report states.

Following the 2007 terrorist attack in Male’s Sultan Park, “Gayoom himself warned of this problem”.

“Maldivians are influenced by what is happening in the world. They go to Pakistan, study in madrasas and come back with extreme religious ideas,” the report quoted Gayoom as saying.

Grassroots radicalisation

“The contemporary Maldivian political environment favors radical and political Islam taking root in Maldivian society, especially when political parties and civil society increasingly take refuge in religion,” the report states, citing Maldivian academic Dr Azra Naseem.

In 2010, new regulations prohibited “talking about religions other than Islam in Maldives, and propagating such religions through the use of any kind of medium.” The Ministry of Islamic Affairs published this legislation under the Protection of Religious Unity Act of 1994.

However, the report found that the “major force behind more austere religious practices in the Maldives is the Adhaalath (Justice) Party (AP), which has controlled the Ministry of Islamic Affairs, with Sheikh Shaheem Ali Saeed as its current minister”.

Given that the AP supports strict implementation of Shari’a Law, the party has “outspokenly argued that music and singing are haram (forbidden) and called for an end to the sale of alcohol at the country’s hundreds of luxury resorts,” said the report.

In February 2013, Saeed warned that “various Christian organisations and missionaries are strongly involved and active in our society because they want to ‘wipe out’ Islam from the Maldives”. He subsequently started a campaign against Christians and “Freemasons”, the report stated.

Two non-government organisations (NGOs), Jamiyyathu Salaf (JS) and the Islamic Foundation of Maldives (IFM), are considered religiously conservative Salafists who “work with the country’s political parties to further the cause of Islamism in the Maldives,” the report stated.

Extremist incidents

Extremists have directly targeted Maldivian liberal intellectuals, writers and activists, the study notes.

“On January 3, 2011, assailants attempted to kill Aishath Velezinee, an activist fighting for the independence of the country’s justice system, by stabbing her in the back in broad daylight,” said the report.

Velezinee is a whistleblower that in 2010 identified members of the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) who were “conspiring with key political figures to hijack the judiciary and bring down the country’s first democratically-elected government,” the report added.

The study found that the Ministry of Islamic Affairs was “at least indirectly encouraged extremism” by initiating “crackdowns” on media outlets for anti-Islamic content.

The blog of prominent free speech and religious freedom campaigner, Khilath ‘Hilath’ Rasheed, was blocked in 2011. A month afterward, Rasheed’s skull was fractured when 10 men attacked him with stones during a peaceful rally he organised in Male’.

Rasheed was arrested a few days after the incident and jailed for 24 days for participating in the rally.

In June 2012, Rasheed was nearly killed “after extremists cut his throat open with a box cutter”.

“After the attempt on his life, Rasheed named three political leaders—Islamic Affairs Minister Mohamed Shaheem Ali Saeed, Adhaalath Party President Imran Abdulla and Jumhooree Party lawmaker Ibrahim Muttalib Shaheem – as being indirectly responsible for the attempt on his life,” the report states.

Later in 2012, the moderate religious scholar and lawmaker, Afrasheem Ali, was stabbed to death at his home in Male’. He was considered an Islamic moderate who was “outspoken in his controversial positions,” reads the report.

In February 2013, “a reporter for the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP)-aligned Raajje TV station, Ibrahim ‘Aswad’ Waheed, was beaten unconscious with an iron bar while riding on a motorcycle near the artificial beach area of Male’,” the study added.

Previously, during the 2011 South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), protesters “intolerant toward other religious and cultural symbols” damaged monuments gifted to the Maldives by Pakistan, Bhutan, Sri Lanka.

Islamic radicals on February 7 2012 also vandalised archaeological artifacts in the National Museum that were mostly ancient Hindu and Buddhist relics, destroying 99 percent of the evidence of Maldivian pre-Islamic history.

Jihadists

“In April 2006, a Maldivian national, Ali Jaleel, and a small group of jihadists from the Maldives attempted to travel to Pakistan to train for violent jihad in Afghanistan or Iraq,” the report reads.

While his first attempt was unsuccessful, Jaleel did eventually travel to Pakistan and “launched a suicide attack at the Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) headquarters in Lahore in May 2009.”

In September 2007, Islamic extremists committed a terrorist attack in the Maldives aimed at the tourism industry.

A bomb exploded in Male’s Sultan Park and wounded 12 foreigners. The three men arrested and later jailed for the bombing confessed that their goal was to “target, attack and injure non-Muslims to fulfill jihad,” states the report.

A month following the bombing, the investigation led to Darul-Khair mosque on Himandhoo Island. However, “some 90 masked and helmeted members of the mosque confronted police, wielding wooden planks and refusing to let the police enter,” said the report.

Although the Maldivian army eventually established control, “The stand-off resulted in a number of injuries, and one police officer had his fingers cut off.” In November, a video of the mosque confrontation was posted on the al-Qa’ida-linked alEkhlaas web forum by a group called Ansar al-Mujahidin with the message “your brothers in the Maldives are calling you,” the report states.

Evidence suggests that three Maldivian jihadists planned to establish a terrorist group in the country around 2007-2008 and send members for military training in Pakistan.

“At least one of these individuals did in fact travel to Pakistan, as Yoosuf Izadhy was arrested in Pakistan’s South Waziristan Agency in March 2009, along with eight other Maldivians,” states the report.

In 2009, then-President Nasheed warned that “Maldivian people are being recruited by Taliban and they are fighting in Pakistan,” quotes the report.

“Despite its reputation as an idyllic paradise popular among Western tourists, political and religious developments in the Maldives should be monitored closely,” the report concludes.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Suspension of trial raises hopes for credible presidential polls: Times of India

The halt on ex-Maldivian president Mohamed Nasheed’s controversial trial has raised hopes of more credible presidential polls in the country, where electioneering has picked up pace with the nomination of candidates for the elections including through primaries, writes Sameer Arshad for the Times of India.

The Maldivian High Court halted the case on April 1 days after the European Union said the polls would not be credible without Nasheed, whose supporters describe the trial for ordering a judge’s detention during his tenure as motivated to prevent him from contesting. The UN echoed countries like India and the US as it urged all sides to work for ensuring “fair, peaceful and inclusive elections’’ last month.

Yet Nasheed’s participation is not completely guaranteed. His supporters fear the Supreme Court may overrule the order suspending the trial till the legality of the judges hearing his case in a lower court is decided. They point out rampant political control over Maldivian judiciary to underline their fears and warn of a violent backlash if they come true.

Nasheed’s supporters were somewhat vindicated as UN Special Rapporteur Gabriela Knaul called for constitutional reforms to ensure judicial independence in the Indian Ocean archipelago, while saying judges and lawyers “were not sufficiently independent from external pressures and interferences” in February.

Even Nasheed appears to be unsure of his participation, saying it does not suit the interests of the current dispensation, which stands little chance in retaining its hold following the elections in his presence. He too has warned of violence in case he is prevented from participating in the polls.

Read more

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

President “unaware of any illegal activities” as Artur brothers investigation continues

President Dr Mohamed Waheed has told local media he was not aware of any danger posed by the presence in the Maldives of two Armenian nationals identified as the Artur brothers, as police continue to investigate the duo’s operations locally.

Controversy has surrounded the presence of Margaryan and Sargayan Artur in the Maldives, primarily based around concerns over their alleged links to criminal activities in Kenya.

On Tuesday (April 2), parliament passed an extraordinary motion concerning the presence of the two foreign nationals in the Maldives, expressing concern that an alleged connection between certain cabinet ministers and the two men posed a “direct threat to national security”.

The President’s Office has maintained there is little information about the nature of the two foreign nationals’ business interests in the Maldives, claiming that the uncertainty about them extended to the exact pronunciation of the Artur name.

Asked about the controversy today, President Waheed told reporters he received no intelligence so far linking the Artur brothers to any criminal activity in the country, adding that much of his knowledge on them was based on local media reports.

“I know that they are in Maldives. I’m also looking into it,” he was quoted he told local media after returning to Male’ from an official visit to Kuwait.

“I didn’t know that they were engaged in any illegal activities,” President Waheed stated, after admitting the government were told by authorities of the brother’s presence in the country earlier this year.

Investigations

President’s Office Spokesperson Masood Imad said that while police were currently in the process of investigating the activities of the Artur brothers in the Maldives, there was no information linking the two foreign nationals to any criminal operations in the country.

Police spokesperson Hassan Haneef told Minivan News that police investigations were continuing to determine if the two foreign nationals had been conducting any illegal activities in the country.  He added that no details into a “critical” ongoing case could be given at present.

However, a BMW car belonging to a company called ‘Artur Brother World Connection’ and registered for use in the Gaafu Dhaalu area was reportedly seized by authorities in Male’ today.

Haneef previously confirmed that police were aware of the Artur brothers presence in the Maldives back in January. He said authorities had contacted “relevant government authorities” at the time to inform them of the Artur brothers’ alleged links to drug trafficking, money laundering, raids on media outlets, dealings with senior government officials and other serious crimes in Kenya.

Minivan News understands that relevant authorities, including the Maldives National Defense Force (MNDF), Ministry of Home Affairs, and the President’s Office were officially informed in January of the presence of the Artur brothers, even as Tourism Minister Ahmed Adheeb signed a letter seeking residency permits for the pair.

Import business

Local media reported that a company registered locally as the “Artur Brothers World Connection” has secured an import license and brought goods into the country after the tourism ministry had granted both men a foreign investment permit.

“We have learned that they had imported some goods under that license. We haven’t been able to determine what those items are. It is not something the Ministry keeps track of. We have to find that out from the customs,” Finance Minister Ahmed Mohamed told Haveeru.

Immigration Controller Mohamed Ali has previously told local media that Artur Sargasyan left the Maldives on Sunday (March 31). Sargasyan first entered the Maldives on a tourist visa in August 2012 and returned again in October, Dr Ali said.

Meanwhile, photos of the Arturs in the company of Tourism Minister Ahmed Adheeb and Defense Minister Mohamed Nazim emerged on social media last weekend, apparently taken during the Piston Motor Racing Challenge held on Hulhumale’ between January 25 and 26.

One photo showed Artur Sargsyan next to Adheeb and Nazim, while another has him apparently starting one of the motorcycle races at the event, which was organised by the Maldivian National Defence Force (MNDF).

Another image showed Sargsyan at the red carpet opening for the Olympus Cinema.

Denials

Defense Minister Nazim and Tourism Minister Adheeb have denied any involvement with the pair.

Speaking to Minivan News this week, Adheeb reiterated that he had no personal links with the Artur brothers, whom he said had now left the country on his recommendation.

According to Adheeb, the Artur brothers had previously invested in the country through a registered joint venture company with members of the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP).

Adheeb said he “advised them to leave peacefully and they agreed to sort out their visa and leave. They have now left.”

Parliamentary motion

Submitting a motion to parliament on Tuesday about the Artur’s presence in the Maldives, opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Imthiyaz Fahmy raised concerns about their alleged connections with ministers Nazim and Adheeb.

“The Artur brothers are a direct threat to national security since they are – true to their old style and from the experiences of other countries – directly linked to the top government officials including Mr Mohamed Nazim who is both the Defense Minister and the acting Transport Minister, as well as Mr Ahmed Adheeb who is the Tourism Minister,” Fahmy told Minivan News.

Fahmy said the Artur brothers were believed to have carried out “all sorts of serious illegal activities internationally” and that the Maldives “is incapable of handling these notorious conmen from Armenia. They are capable of taking local criminal gangs to different heights.”

Fahmy explained that immigration laws do not permit entry into the Maldives if the visitor is “even suspected” of being involved in human smuggling or trafficking; may be [considered] a national threat, or otherwise may commit crimes against the state.”

“Given all these facts – and that the Artur brothers are  world-infamous for carrying out criminal activities of this sort – they were allowed into the country and seen publicly with top government officials,” Fahmy added, alleging that the pair have three meetings with Adheeb and Nazim on Hulhumale’ and on Club Faru.

The extraordinary motion passed with 27 votes in favour to 10 against.

Meanwhile, Kenyan media has this week media reported that the brothers’ practice of publicly ingratiating themselves with senior government officials appeared not to have changed.

“The Arturs’ mode of operation where they show up in the company of top and well-connected government leaders appears to have been replicated in the Maldives. Their presence in the Maldives comes days after ousted leader Mohammed Nasheed expressed fear over his life,” reported Kenya’s Daily Nation publication.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Attorney General told CSC and President’s Office Fahmy’s position cannot be reinstated

Attorney General Azima Shukoor has told local media that she had previously informed the President’s Office and Civil Service Commission (CSC) that the commission’s president Fahmy Hassan should not be reinstated.

Fahmy was dismissed from the CSC by the Parliament, after a case was filed against him alleging that he had sexually abused a female staff working at the commission.

Parliament’s Independent Commission decided that there was enough evidence to believe that Fahmy was guilty of the allegations against him.

Azima Shukoor told local media that she had told the CSC and President’s Office that the Supreme Court’s ruling does not state that Fahmy’s position should be reinstated.

However the CSC has said that Fahmy returned to work after he received a letter from the President’s Office.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

First time entire panel of judges have ganged up on a chief judge after a verdict: Nasheed’s lawyer

Member of former President Mohamed Nasheed’s legal team Hassan Latheef has expressed concern over the case filed against the Chief Judge of High Court, Ahmed Shareef.

The judges filed the case with the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) over the High Court’s decision to issue a stay order on the Hulhumale Magistrate Court’s trial of former President Mohamed Nasheed.

Nasheed’s legal team had appealed the decision by the Hulhumale Magistrate Court rejecting their request to delay the trial of the former President until the end of the presidential election on September 2013, in which Nasheed is contesting on behalf of opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP). The team also contested the legitimacy of the panel of the judges appointed to hear the case.

Nasheed is currently being tried in the Hulhumale Magistrate Court for his controversial detention of Chief Judge of Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed during the last days of his presidency.

Following the appeal, the High Court ordered the magistrate court to halt the former president’s trial until it determined the legitimacy of the panel of judges appointed to examine his case. The Hulhumale Magistrate Court subsequently suspended all trials concerning the arrest of judge.

Last Wednesday, eight judges of the High Court’s nine-member bench filed a case against Chief Judge of the High Court Ahmed Shareef at the JSC challenging the decision and claiming that the chief judge had issued the order arbitrarily.

A spokesperson from the JSC confirmed to Minivan News that the commission had received a “letter” from eight judges of High Court regarding Judge Shareef. However, he declined to provide any details of the case.

However, a High Court media official denied the allegations made by the judges, stating that the case concerning the stay order was registered at the court on Sunday and the former President’s legal team had paid the charges the next day. The media official added that the order was issued after the court had received the payment.

Speaking during an opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) rally held on Wednesday evening, Latheef – who was the minister for human resources, youth and sports during Nasheed’ presidency –  argued that the decision by the Chief Judge of High Court regarding the stay order was made in accordance with the High Court’s normal procedures.

Latheef claimed that based on the documents published at the high court website, out of the 15 stay orders issued in 2012 by the High Court in 2012, 10 stay orders had been signed by just one High Court judge.

High Court judges who filed the case against Chief Judge Shareef claimed he had issued the stay order without registering the case, did not assign a case number to the case, and had not discussed the matter with the other judges.

They also claimed that usual practice at the court was to discuss the matter with other judges, although stay orders were ultimately issued by a single judge.

“The Hulhumale Magistrate Court which is hearing the case of President Nasheed was ordered to be suspended by High Court in according to its usual practice in such cases. The case was registered at the High Court and even before there were instances were stay orders had been issued that had only one signature,” Latheef said.

Latheef also dismissed the claims that the case had not been registered at the court.

“We filed the case on March 31. The stay order was issued the afternoon of the following day, after we had even paid the charges for filing the case in the court,” he contended.

The former minister said it was very concerning to see all the judges of High Court teaming up against the chief judge and taking the matter to the JSC following the decision.

The JSC is mandated with the oversight, appointment and discipline of judges, and was also responsible for both creating the Hulhumale Magistrate Court, and controversially appointing the panel of judges overseeing the Nasheed trial.

The JSC’s membership includes several of Nasheed’s direct political opponents, including rival presidential candidate Gasim Ibrahim.

Latheef alleged that two out of the eight High Court Judges who had filed the case against the chief judge had also acted in a similar manner, but no complaint had been filed.

He also questioned the motive behind the filing of the case at the JSC – which is mandated with oversight of appointing judges and looking into their disciplinary issues – arguing that the JSC was the one of respondents in the appeal case.

Owing to the fact that the case of the chief judge is being looked into by the JSC who is a party to the case, Latheef cast doubt as to whether justice would be served in the court case.

“Another question is who will look into the case impartially – all the other judges have filed this case at the JSC against Chief Judge Shareef. Eight judges are on one side while the chief judge is on the other side. These are new issues which have come out of the case,” Latheef said.

He noted that this was the first time in Maldivian legal history where an entire panel of judges had teamed up against the chief judge following a decision on a case.

He also questioned as to why the High Court judges had not rebelled against an order issued by a single judge, invalidating a Civil Court order halting a police raid on the MDP protest camp in May 2012.

On May 31, 2012 the Civil Court ordered to halt to the dismantling of the Usfasgandu site by the security forces, after police had obtained a search warrant from the Criminal Court on the grounds that the MDP had been using the area as a hub for criminal activity and black magic.

However, the High Court the following day – which happened to be a Friday and not a government working day – overturned the Civil Court order. The order was similarly issued by a single High Court judge.

Latheef criticised the court’s inconsistency and alleged the courts were giving selective justice depending on who had filed the case.

The JSC has come under heavy scrutiny over its appointment of the panel of the judges to Hulhumale Magistrate Court to hear cases concerning arrest of Chief Judge of Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed – which several lawyers and members of JSC itself have claimed exceeded the JSC’s mandate.

Among the JSC’s critics include JSC member Sheikh Shuaib Abdul Rahman – the member appointed from among the public.  Sheikh Shuaib Abdul Rahman previously claimed the JSC had arbitrarily appointed three magistrates from courts across the Maldives to Nasheed’s case after dismissing the three names first submitted to the commission by the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

Speaker of Parliament Abdulla Shahid – who is also a member of the JSC – stated that he believed that the judicial watchdog had acted unconstitutionally in assigning magistrates to a particular case.

“In deciding upon the bench, the JSC did follow its rules of procedures. As in, it was voted upon in an official meeting and six of the seven members in attendance voted on the matter. The seventh member being the chair, does not vote in matters,” Shahid explained.

Other critics included United Nations Special Rapporteur (UNSR) on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Gabriela Knaul, who also said the appointment was carried out arbitrarily.

“Being totally technical, it seems to me that the set-up, the appointment of judges to the case, has been set up in an arbitrary manner outside the parameters laid out in the laws,” Knaul said, responding to questions from media after delivering her statement in February.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Bahrain Telecommunications Company acquires majority share in Dhiraagu

Bahrain Telecomunications Company (Batelco) has acquired the majority share of Dhivehi Raajjeyge Gulhun Public Limited (Dhiraagu), the largest telecommunications service provider in the Maldives, Dhiraagu announced Wednesday (April 3).

Previously, Cable & Wireless Communications (CWC), a British multinational telecommunications company, was the majority shareholder of Dhiraagu. Batelco purchased a majority of assets in Monaco & Islands Business Unit from CWC, resulting in its owning 52 percent of Dhiraagu shares.

Dhiraagu’s board of directors was altered following the purchase. The company’s leadership now includes Ibrahim Athif Shakoor as Chairperson and Government Director, and Ismail Waheed as CEO and Managing Director.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MDP dismisses prospect of power-sharing coalition

Senior figures of the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) including former President Mohamed Nasheed have said that sharing cabinet positions among different political parties will not result in an efficient government in the Maldives.

The party’s stand on coalitions come at a time where President Mohamed Waheed’s Gaumee Iththihaadh Party (GIP) and other smaller political parties have claimed that the September 7 elections can only be won through a broad coalition of political parties.

Last week, President Waheed announced plans to form a coalition between his party and the religious conservative Adhaalath Party (AP), ahead of the presidential elections.

Meanwhile President Waheed’s Special Advisor Dr Hassan Saeed’s Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP) has also announced its plans to join Waheed’s GIP and back for the president’s re-election.

The three parties are among the eight political parties currently comprising of an informal coalition backing President Waheed’s government, following his controversial ascension to power on February 7, 2012 after the sudden resignation of President Nasheed.

Coalitions result in weak governments: Nasheed

Speaking during a party gathering of his own party MDP on Tuesday evening, President Nasheed stated that leaders of political parties had learned “bitter lessons” surrounding the inability to run a government by sharing cabinet positions among different political parties over the last four years.

“A cabinet in which one minister belongs to this party and another belongs to that party, cannot run a government,” he said.

Nasheed said he could not understand the relationship between national development and political coalition, reflecting on the coalition of parties currently involved with President Waheed, which he described as not a real cabinet but rather a mixture of individuals with different political ideologies.

Highlighting the developments that took place his post-resignation, the former President said the UN had urged his party MDP to join the government of President Waheed, but the MDP refused to the offer because it did not see how development could be brought to the country at a table with people who lacked commitment in coming to common terms.

“I want the people of this country to remember that, when there is word of coalition, it means of forming a weak government,” said the former president.

Nasheed defeated former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom in the second round of the 2008 election under the “Wathan Edhey Gothah” coalition. The MDP steadily shed its coalition partners during its term in office, falling out with the DQP, business tycoon Gasim Ibrahim’s Jumhoree Party (JP), the Adhaalath Party and President Waheed’s GIP.

The Wathan Edhey Gothah Alliance was short lived and almost all parties left the government within the first two years. Gasim Ibrahim left the government within 21 days while the DQP left within the first four months.

Speaking during the rally, Nasheed said it was an uphill task to run a stable government with political parties of different views, and stressed that political stability was pivotal for development and attracting foreign investment.

Common political ideology not political positions

Chairperson of the MDP MP Moosa ‘Reeko’ Manik echoed similar sentiments claiming that the MDP could not work with political parties which demanded political positions first hand.

However, Moosa said the MDP would welcome colleagues who had sincerity and commitment to an MDP-led government’s policies.

“There is no place in the MDP for those who come to us and demand a package of four cabinet positions, 12 judges, three warehouses and the Maldives Monetary Authority (MMA). But it doesn’t mean all doors are closed for those parties interested in working under a common political ideology,” Manik said.

Meanwhile, Deputy Parliamentary Group Leader of MDP, MP Ali Waheed, argued that coalitions would not work in presidential systems such as in the Maldives.

“We don’t need to divide government portfolios among political parties. Even MDP should not do that by saying that it is an MDP alliance. That is not how we can run the country. Youth Minister from a different sect, the Finance Minister in a different sect, the Islamic Minister in a different sect and the Economic Minister keeps his eyes closed. Is that a cabinet? You cannot call that a cabinet,” said Ali Waheed.

Ali Waheed argued that cabinet ministers should hold common views with the President in charge, and should follow the president’s plans and policies.

Elect one political ideology, not a mixture

Speaking to Minivan News, MDP spokesperson MP Imthiyaz ‘Inthi’ Fahmy said coalitions do not work in a proper presidential system and that it would be better for the country to have a single political party with a single political ideology to govern the country rather than a group of parties with different views on issues.

He also contended that sometimes a coalition may limit proper representation of people where a smaller political party is given larger political portfolios in the government.

“For example with this government, the Adhaalath Party does not have even a single seat in parliament nor does it control any local council. But they are given several cabinet portfolios, so it is not actually representing the people,” he said.

Fahmy contended that if the country was to see fast development and a stable economy it needed to adopt a stable government.

“If people are electing a government, they should vote for a single ideology. Especially in presidential systems it does not work like that because the government is not formed from the parliament,” he added.

Meanwhile speaking to Minivan News previously, Deputy Parliamentary Group Leader of government aligned Dhivehi Rayythunge Party (DRP) MP Abdulla Mausoom said the word coalition was “not very meaningful in the Maldives”.

Mausoom at the time suggested that legislation would be required to enforce coalition arrangements before they could become a serious feature of Maldivian politics. DRP had previously argued that the current alliance of political parties in support of President Waheed as a national-unity government rather than a coalition.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Comment: To boycott or not to boycott

This article was first published on Ethicaltraveler.org. Republished with permission.

Ethical travel as a concept is now common discourse, with travelers increasingly asking now they can minimise the impact they have on local communities, as well as expressing growing interest in volunteerism and working with communities to enact change. Travelers hold a unique position of economic power over the whole tourism supply chain – transport, accommodation, hospitality and other vital aspects of many burgeoning economies. Tourism boycotts are a common and somewhat popular way to cash in on this power.

Avaaz, an international advocacy and campaigning community, has recently realised this potential in a campaign in the Maldvies against an outdated law that has led to a 15-year-old rape victim being sentenced to 100 lashes. The Maldives rely heavily on tourism, and the fact that nearly two million people have signed this petition shows the potential power that tourists have. The Maldives’ former president Mohamed Nasheed recognised this potential when he asked for a tourism boycott last year, telling the UK Financial Times newspaper that tourists visiting the country would just be bankrolling an illegitimate government.

The idea of shunning a country is far from new. Burmese democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi called for a tourism boycott of her country in 1999, arguing that tourism is “a form of moral support for [the military regime]…they seem to look on the influx of tourists as proof that their actions are accepted by the world.”

This decade-long boycott was declared ”over” in late 2010 following a statement from the National League for Democracy, the Burmese political opposition party led by Suu Kyi. In 2011, Survival International called for a boycott of Botswana following the closure of a local waterhole essential to the Bushmen at the Central Kalahari Game Reserve. This boycott was only lifted when the Bushman won the legal case and the borehole was reopened after nine years.

Sometimes the proposed tourism boycott is just for a particular area or a particular company. Environmentalists are calling for a tourist season boycott of a New Jersey shore town in the USA over the local council’s decision to use tropical hardwood to rebuild their boardwalk.

Harpseals.org pushes for a Canadian tourism boycott in a bid to end seal hunting. British tourists are being asked to boycott Thai elephant camps, something international animal activist group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animal (PETA) has strongly supported. Dutch journalist Jos van Noord called for a boycott of Egypt and other Arab countries last year in order to stop violence against local Christians. However, Arab-West Report argues that this tourism boycott will only hurt Christians, saying the international travel community should instead be working to promote and reinvigorate tourism in the Middle East as so much of the local economy relies on this trade.

Last year’s arrest and conviction of the first gay hotel owners in Granada, Nicaragua, has “prompted some members of the gay community to boycott Nicaragua tourism,” according to The Nicaragua Dispatch. The authorities claim that the Belgian men were exploiting minors; however supporters insist that the foreigners were targeted because of their sexual orientation. The town has already seen a drop in local tourism, although it is unclear whether this is a result of the boycott or of fear.

Back in the Maldives, recently dismissed Chinese employees of the Beach House Iruveli resort have claimed discrimination against staff and tourists from China. Initial reports suggest that, following an eruption of such claims through Chinese social media networks several potential tourists from that nation are concerned and reluctant to make reservations – not just with the resort but in the Maldives in general.

But do tourism boycotts actually achieve anything?

Corporate Ethics International’s Michael Max argues that “boycotts don’t have to reduce the number of tourists to be successful… The reality is that the mere awareness of a boycott causes the target constituency and its supporters to attend more to criticism of their government’s or companies’ policies and inevitably they become more aware of the legitimacy of the criticism.”

Travel consultant David Beirman, however, told Australia’s The Sydney Morning Herald in 2007 that boycotts can be counterproductive as they hurt local people who rely on an income from tourism. This argument was widely used during the Burma boycott; Lonely Planet co-founder Tony Wheeler was particularly vocal in encouraging travel to the insulated nation over the past decade.

Should travelers adhere to calls for boycotts?

Travel, particularly ethical travel, is a highly personal journey. Traveling exposures us to new ideas and concepts. By opening ourselves to these experiences, we will undoubtedly be faced with difficult moral and ethical decisions. Ethical travelers have a duty to make themselves aware of these issues and to act both appropriately and responsibly.

The best advice is to ensure that you are well informed of the political, social, and economic contexts of your destination before you travel, and make your own decision about whether you want your hard-earned cash to support that particular institution or regime. Wherever possible, try to support local businesses.

“We live in a wonderful world that is full of beauty, charm and adventure. There is no end to the adventures we can have if only we seek them with our eyes open.”

– Jawaharlal Nehru, first Prime Minister of India

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)