Tag: Maumoon abdul gayoom

Comment: What led to democratisation of the Maldives?

This article was first published on Dhivehi Sitee. Republished with permission.

The first multi-party Presidential election of 2008 in the Maldives marked an end to the 30-year authoritarian regime of President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom and saw the installation of a democratic government. However, since the coup in 2012, Maldives is on a rocky road in its democratisation process.

Taking the advice of a close friend of mine who stated that, “if several different people don’t write about the significant events changing their societies, romanticization of, and myths around, those events creep in, and that is one way unreal heroes and unreal villains are born”, I have attempted to write some of my understanding of the democratisation process in the Maldives. As such, in an earlier piece, I have explored how democratisation occurred in the Maldives.

The aim of this piece is to identify the major factors that could explain why democratisation occurs in the first place. Scholars in the past have developed various theories that explain the democratisation of a country. These include the deepening legitimacy issues of authoritarian systems due to the wider acceptance of democratic values, rapid economic growth, and changing policies of international actors towards democracy. I argue that modernisation and international pressure for democratic reforms were the major factors that led to democratisation in the Maldives and assess here how both factors contributed to democratisation in the Maldives.

Modernisation factor

The positive correlation between modernisation and democracy is well established within political science literature. Modernisation theory is the belief that economic development directly leads to positive social and political changes. As one of the first proponents of this theory, Seymour Martin Lipset argues that economic development leads to modernisation that encompasses industrialisation, higher average income, urbanisation and better education. All these factors produce profound social transformation that together leads to democratisation.

Since Gayoom came to power, Maldives has achieved significant economic growth and hence significant transformations in the society. The social transformations in the Maldives became an important factor leading to democratic reforms. In particular, three aspects of modernisation – increased average income, urbanisation and better education – have all facilitated the growth of democratic aspirations within the Maldivian society. These three factors are explored further below.

Average Income

When Gayoom came to power in 1978, Maldives was regarded as one of the poorest 25 countries and hence included in the UN list of the Least Developed Countries (LDC). However, in 1997, Maldives graduated from the list of LDCs because of the development progress. This development was driven by the growth of high-end tourism in the country. The Maldives’ GDP grew from US $25 million in 1978 to US $700 million in 2008. Furthermore, given the small population, Maldives has the highest per capita income in South Asia.

We therefore could infer that during President Gayoom’s authoritarian regime, average income has grown. Larry Diamond, one of the leading scholars in democracy studies, argues that “as people acquire more income and information, they become more politically aware and confident, more inclined to participate in politics, to think for themselves, and thus to break free of traditional patron-client ties”. Similarly, in the context of Maldives, the increase in average income resulted in more citizens being politically aware and active. This is particularly evident in more urbanised islands such as Male’, the capital of Maldives.

Urbanisation

The degree of urbanisation, according to Lipset, has a strong correlation with democracy. Furthermore, Diamond argues that as people move to cities from rural areas, they adhere to new political attitudes and beliefs largely due to the increased education levels and global communication. Being the capital city and centre of all government activities, Male’ has assumed the character of a ‘metropole’. Many citizens from outer islands have moved to Male’ to attain better services including education, employment and healthcare. The year 2000 census shows a population of 74,069 people in Male’ and was the only island with more than 10,000 inhabitant.

Urbanisation had significantly transformed the society and led to more politically active citizens. An assessment conducted by the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI) found that ‘the level of political awareness and sophistication’ was significantly higher in Male’ compared to other islands. These factors resulted in an increasing number of citizens questioning the legitimacy of the authoritarian regime and expressing the preference for a democratic regime as the most viable political system. As a result, the struggle for democratic reforms first started in the capital and the opposition garnered strong support in Male’.

Education

Education, as another aspect of modernisation, is an important factor in the Maldives’ democratisation. There is a voluminous literature on the relationship between education and the support for democracy. For instance, Lipset argues that a better-educated population in a country increases the chances for democracy in that country. Education affects the valuation of individuals’ beliefs and values, resulting in a greater acceptance of democratic values. A recent survey conducted in South Asia also found formal education to be a strong factor determining the level of support for democracy.

The same applied in the Maldives. During Gayoom’s regime, a significant number of Maldivians had the opportunity to obtain higher education overseas, giving them greater exposure to the outside world. A significant number of elites within the opposition came to value democracy as a result of such education and exposure. For instance, President Mohamed Nasheed, who was elected in 2008, played a vital role in democratisation in Maldives, acting as the main opposition leader during President Gayoom’s regime. President Nasheed was educated in the UK and had a greater exposure to a practicing democracy.

International factor

International pressure on Gayoom’s authoritarian regime also played a significant role in the democratisation of Maldives. Two important aspects – economy and security – makes the Maldives a weak state susceptible to international pressure. As far as the economy is concerned, Maldives has very limited means (mainly tourism and fish export) of earning foreign currency and is also aid-dependent.

Professor Tom Ginsburg from the University of Chicago Law School argues that, in terms of security, Maldives does not have the capability to guard its maritime borders. As a result, the country is highly dependent on the international actors and these actors who stronlyg influence on domestic issues. Former Foreign Minister Dr. Ahmed Shaheed argues that, President Gayoom’s regime proved sensitive to international pressure and in many cases led to a change of course towards democratic reforms.

The international community particularly stood against the arbitrary arrest of opposition politicians, widespread human rights abuses and torture in prisons. Several Amnesty International reports helped awaken the international community about the repressive tendencies of President Gayoom’s regime. For instance, the August 2004 crackdown that resulted in arrest of many opposition figures attracted strong criticism from countries such as the United States, Britain, India and Sri Lanka. Moreover, Members of European Parliament called to an end to all non-humanitarian aid as well as imposing travel ban to Maldives. As a result, President Gayoom soon faced isolation from the international community.

However, this isolation came to an end with the 2004 tsunami that had significant negative impacts on the economy, especially the tourism industry. The nation, therefore, was in a great need of humanitarian assistance. Professor Ginsburg argues that the 2004 tsunami substantially facilitated opening up the nation to international engagement. Furthermore, it gave international donors the leverage they needed to apply additional pressure on the autocratic regime to pursue and speed-up democratic reforms. As a country highly dependent on the international community in terms of foreign aid, tourism and good standing with the outside world, the pressure from external actors such as Amnesty International and the European Union (EU) became too much for the President Gayoom’s regime. As a result, the regime did bring about several democratic reforms.

In sum, democratic reforms in the Maldives resulted from two major factors. Firstly, modernisation facilitated the positive social transformations that eventually produced democracy in the Maldives. Secondly, international pressure for democratic reforms also played a significant role in democratisation in the Maldives. As a country that is highly dependent on international community, Maldives is susceptible to international pressure. The efforts from international actors such as EU in many cases have compelled the regime to allow democratic reforms in the Maldives.

Apart from the factors discussed in this essay, there are also other reasons that led to democratisation in the Maldives. For instance, the growing economic and social inequality, the oppressiveness of Gayoom’s regime, increased civil society participation, and the restricted practice of Islam (eg: restriction on preaching by religious scholars) are also likely to have played significant roles in the democratisation of Maldives.

Ahmed Hamdhan is a third-year Bachelor of Arts (Policy Studies and Political Science) and a student at the Australian National University.

All comment pieces are the sole view of the author and do not reflect the editorial policy of Minivan News. If you would like to write an opinion piece, please send proposals to [email protected]

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MTCC head resigns shortly after MDP switch

The CEO of Maldives Transport and Contracting Company (MTCC), Dr Ahmed Adham Abdulla, has resigned just hours after local media reported his decision to join the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP).

A former member of President Dr Mohamed Waheed’s Gaumee Ittihad Party (GIP), Abdullah, had told local media that his decision was made in the hope of providing the best service to the public.

“It’s not me, it’s the people who showed that, with their 45 percent that this is the way things should go. I am always a person who wants to serve the people. That’s why I joined the party that has a future,” he told Channel News Maldives.

The MTCC contracted ferry between Hulhumale’ and Male’ was temporarily suspended this morning after the contracted boats were not paid for – a situation Abdulla claimed was the result of large sums the company was itself owed.

Government aligned minister, Dr Ali Shareef, was dismissed from his post earlier this week after supporting his Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party’s decision to back the MDP’s President Nasheed in the presidential run-off.

Meanwhile, rumours continued to circulate regarding the future of Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) MP Ahmed Mahloof, who is also said to be on the verge of switching to the MDP.

PPM party leader and former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, however, dismissed speculation when speaking at a campaign rally yesterday in Male’.

“I will say that by God’s will Mahloof will remain with us. I called him and talked to him just past sunset. He voiced some grievances. But he also believes that the nations interest must come first,” Gayoom was quoted as saying.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

DRP votes to support MDP in presidential run-off

The Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) has become the first party to officially back a candidate in the second round of the presidential election, throwing its support behind the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) and Mohamed Nasheed.

The decision made at a party council meeting earlier today saw 12 votes cast for the MDP and three for their run-off rivals the Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM), with seven party members undecided.

MDP spokesman Imthiyaz Fahmy today explained that there had been no official communication between his party and the DRP, emphasising that the move had been the DRP’s “own decision”.

Fahmy suggested that the move would bring 10,000 votes to his party – intimating that President Dr Mohamed Waheed himself had not attracted any votes for his coalition with the DRP in the first round.

The MDP have argued that they need only few thousand votes – in addition to the 95,224 received on Saturday (45.45 percent of the total) – to claim a second round win.

DRP MP’s Abdulla Mausoom and Rozaina Adam took to Twitter soon after the council’s decision with the MDP’s ‘kuriah, kuriah’ (‘forward, forward’) election slogan appearing on both members’ feeds.

Economic Minister Ahmed Mohamed voted in favour of backing PPM and is reported to have stormed out of the council meeting telling the press he intended to support the PPM regardless.

While leader Ahmed Thasmeen Ali has previously said he would not remain in the DRP if the party’s council decided to enter a coalition with the MDP, the MP for Kendhoo said at a press conference after the council meeting today that it would be “irresponsible” for a senior politician to withhold support based on previous statements.

“Therefore, I intend to participate in President Nasheed’s campaign as DRP leader and fully participate in efforts to seek support for President Nasheed in the upcoming presidential election,” he said.

Thasmeen reportedly said that he considered the current political reality and decided on the path that would minimise the “spirit of political vengeance.”

Minivan News was unable to obtain further comment from the DRP prior to publication.

Going into the elections, the DRP aligned with President Dr Mohamed Waheed’s Gaumee Ittihad Party (GIP), with leader Thasmeen as Waheed’s running mate. Both candidates officially ran as independents, however, due to a prior registration issue linked with the size of the GIP.

Speaking with Minivan News the day before the election, Waheed explained that he felt the strength of the DRP could compensate for his party’s relatively small support base. The DRP is currently the country’s third largest party, with 21,411 members according to the Election Commissions most recent figures. It also has 10 members in the Majlis.

However, as it became clear that Waheed had gained the fewest votes on polling day – just 5.13 percent – the DRP’s Mausoom hinted that the party would be looking for new affiliations heading into the second round.

Registered in 2005, the DRP was formed as a vehicle for former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom to compete in the country’s first multi-party presidential elections in 2008. After the 30-year leader lost power to the MDP’s Mohamed Nasheed, the DRP remained the major opposition in parliament.

Thasmeen was anointed party head following Gayoom’s short-lived retirement from politics. However, the former’s willingness to negotiate with the MDP led to a 12-page letter of complaints from the former leader and an acrimonious split in 2011, followed by the departure of Gayoom loyalists to the newly-formed PPM.

Speaker of the Majlis Abdulla Shahid has been the highest profile defection from the DRP in recent months – joining the MDP to rapturous celebrations in April – though the party has seen a steady drain of support as PPM’s numbers have risen.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Q&A: President Dr Mohamed Waheed

President Dr Mohamed Waheed assumed the presidency after the controversial resignation of his predecessor, Mohamed Nasheed, on February 7, 2012. He will tomorrow face his former running-mate in the country’s second ever multi-party presidential election.

Appearing relaxed in the tranquil surroundings of Muleeage, Waheed took time before Friday prayers to talk about the country, his time in office, and Saturday’s poll.

Daniel Bosley: How are you feeling going into tomorrow’s election?

President Dr Mohamed Waheed: Actually, I’m quite happy and I feel peaceful because two years ago it was a little bit hard to imagine how we could come to this point where we have a peaceful election. I’m confident that this will be one of the best elections in our country’s history. This is the second democratic election and the Election Commission is trying its best to hold a free and fair election, because it’s not only the responsibility of the Elections Commission to do this. A free and fair election is possible only when all the political actors make an effort to make it a free and fair election – and not try to make it more difficult than it already is. But I’m generally confident that we will have a transparent, free, and fair election tomorrow.

DB: You are well known for having a liberal background – Stanford educated, experience at the United Nations, liberal views under former President Nasheed openly expressed – and yet soon after coming to power, you told your supporters “you are all my mujahideen”. What was your motivation for that kind of rhetoric?

MW: Okay, that wasn’t right because we used the word ‘jihad’, I never used the word ‘mujahideen’ to begin with. The word ‘jihad’ is used in Maldives for various contexts – everybody uses it – even my finance minister is called Jihad. Really, it’s a term in our language that is interchangeably used for suffering, for sacrifice, for struggle. All these three meanings come, so if you want to say ‘our struggle’ you will say ‘our jihad’. So it was used in that context, but of course because it connotes very sensitive meanings in the international media, some people picked it up and used it against us.

DB: What are your general thoughts on politicisation of Islam in the Maldives?

MW: Maldives is a 100 percent Muslim country – a Sunni Muslim country. It’s generally more liberal than many other Islamic countries. Religion and politics have never been separate in this country. It has always been part and parcel of the political process. Religious scholars have always played an important role in government in this country. So, in that sense, it is hard for us immediately to achieve a secular state. We have to have the imagination and the creativity to come up with a political system that can also count in the values of our society. So the challenge that we face today is to walk together – to blend together – the traditional Maldivian and Islamic values along with liberal values which have their roots predominantly in the West. So, trying to do this is not easy and it’s not going to happen overnight.

It will come through the education system. Young people will grow up to become the majority of our society, [and] will have to embrace the new values. This is why I always say that liberal education is so important, but only if we have enough of it. Our universities don’t teach courses in world history, in philosophy – and I’ve been arguing that this is so important. Ultimately, the democracy that we want to achieve is one in which people can speak freely on all matters, including religious matters, and to be able to discuss issues freely. Because Islam also has given a very strong moral basis, an ethical basis – the way you treat your elders, the way you treat your children, how you behave yourself in society, the use of cleanliness – a lot of these thing are already there and they are part of the social fabric of Maldives. That is why it is so important to maintain the fabric that we have while we bring in the new values. For people like us who have spent most of our time in Western universities, sometimes we don’t understand the importance of the traditional values system. But that’s what makes Maldives a unique place, that’s what makes Maldivians what they are, and that’s really a challenge. We are trying to move forward with democracy and because it’s the early years of democracy, it’s difficult.

DB: Have you found it difficult to lead without being part of a mainstream party? Do you think that it’s hard for a president in the Maldives at this time to negotiate consensus with other parties?

MW: Very good question. This is why I have chosen a running mate who is from the second largest political party and that party also has members of parliament. My sense of this election is like the 2008 election – it will probably be a coalition that will win this election. So there are other political parties who will probably join and we will have a workable majority in the parliament. It has been difficult not just for me, it has been difficult for my predecessor President Nasheed, it was also difficult for President Gayoom because, in our democratic march forward, there is this tension within the executive and the legislature, and that tension has been there – I don’t think it is going to disappear immediately but we need to work out a working relationship between the executive and the legislative branches of the government.

DB: Soon after you came to power your former political advisor, Dr Hassan Saeed, described you as ‘politically the weakest person in the government’, and you yourself said last November that everybody was running the state as they pleased. What do you say to those who argue that you have overseen a lame duck presidency?

MW: You see, I don’t think that’s not completely correct because a lame-duck government is not able to do the kind of things that we have done. If you just look at the development programmes, we have continued to provide all the support, the social services, that this government has planned – all of them have been implemented. The elderly people have received their regular allowances, the single mothers received their allowances, all the government employees get their salaries – all of these things are happening. On top of that, we have had a very ambitious infrastructure development programme. Fifty islands’ harbour projects are going on. We have highly ambitious renewable energy programme. We have acquired about US$200 million in pledges for the introduction of renewable energy into the country. Thirty islands will be almost 100 percent renewable energy. We started making the roads of many islands – we have started new roads of 66 km over the last two years. We used to have, until last year, the lowest higher-education enrolment in any developed country outside of sub-Saharan Africa. Today, any student who wants to go into higher education, who has enrolment in a university or college, has access to financial aid. So, you couldn’t do these things if you are a lame-duck president, but we are not the only country in which the executive branch is deferred to with legislation – we see that in bigger countries in the western hemisphere.

DB: If you could look back at February 7 and the surrounding period, is there anything you would do differently?

MW: Yes, I wish President Nasheed and I were able to have better communication. That would have been something I would have liked. But unfortunately it didn’t happen for whatever reason.

DB: What specifically can you mention that occurred on the day, or the preceding days?

MW: Not just the day itself, but also prior to that we should have worked much more closely. We were not able to work closely partly because a lot of the MDP [Maldivian Democratic Party] activists – MDP senior people – felt that I couldn’t be trusted because I refused to join the MDP. I was one of the founding members of the MDP but, for various reasons, I had to leave it and then I was reluctant to go back in under pressure. There would have been a possibility for me to join the MDP if they didn’t push too hard. But, because of those things our communications were not good. I think this could have been avoided and I’m sure senior MDP people would tell you the same.

DB: Following the investigation of the transfer of power, the CoNI report called for reform of the police and the judiciary. What concrete steps have you taken in the past 12 months to bring about these reforms?

MW: One was about police brutality, there were allegations of police brutality, and the CoNI report called for investigation and we specifically asked the Police Integrity Commission to look into this. There were cases of excessive use of force and these were investigated and some cases have been already tried. There were recommendations about institutional strengthening, particularly the judiciary and others, but this last two years have been so difficult, it has really not been easy for us to embark on that. Courses of institution building – I think this is what used to be done after the elections with a consensus. There is a fairly comprehensive proposal that government has drawn up on institutional reform and institutional strengthening. I wanted to have a national conference on this but we couldn’t get all the political parties to buy into it. It’s really important that political parties be part of that process so that we all work together for the common objective of strengthening the judiciary and others. That also goes for parliament – parliament is also not functioning ideally, and anybody who’s seen me delivering my presidential address would know.

DB: You have spoken about the mistreatment of your family members under former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom – you mentioned your mother being dragged through the streets and spat upon – something you said you would never forget. But then you invited Gayoom and many members of his family back into the government. How can you explain that? Do you think it’s possible to rule the country without Gayoom’s consent?

MW: Yes, it’s possible to run the government without Gayoom’s consent – absolutely. Me and my family have these issues – but those are family and personal issues. As president of this country, I have to rise above my personal feeling. I know some of my family is not happy with it but as president you are looking at the complete record of a person. When Gayoom came to be be president, we didn’t have education in all the islands, we had only very young tourism industry, we didn’t have regional hospitals, we didn’t have so many educated people in this country. So, the man did something for this country, but he was also very brutal. He continues to have a following – why do you think [Abdulla] Yameen has been getting traction in his political career – not because Yameen is so popular, it’s because of Gayoom and in 2008 election also, if you remember, he actually got more votes in the second round than the first one. So, the man is important in local politics but that doesn’t mean that any government that comes to power has to have his consent or has to listen to him. This is not there anymore. The man served his country, his service has been recognised, it’s time for him to retire.

DB: Without judicial reform, do you think you could govern easily with Gayoom’s apparent control of the courts?

MW: Gayoom is not the only one in this country. We will continue to support the judiciary to function effectively. I think we are emphasising Gayoom’s role in this too much – I don’t think he has that kind of control over the judiciary.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Development pointless without peace, freedom and happiness: PPM Yameen

The Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) presidential candidate Abdulla Yameen has told the population of Kudahuvadhoo that development is “pointless if people can’t relax.”

“The end result of all this effort, of constructing harbours, and sending our children to school, should be to ensure that people can relax and live in peace, happiness and freedom. Otherwise there’s no point in doing all this,” Yameen was reported as saying during a campaign rally.

The PPM candidate is also said to have urged voters to say no to politicians who disturb the peace and make unrealistic promises.

Yameen’s comments echo his prior argument that the worst kind of extremism in the Maldives is the encroachment on other people’s rights.

The comments follow the Maldivian Democratic Party’s (MDP) pledge to implement 137 development projects worth MVR 30 billion (US$1.9 billion) over five years by the PPM’s primary opponent.

In the party’s detailed ‘Costed and Budgeted’ manifesto, former President – and current candidate – Mohamed Nasheed explained that the manifesto included 51,000 job opportunities, a savings scheme for higher education, a student loan scheme, a MVR2000 (US$129) allowance for every single parent and person with special needs, and an allowance of MVR2300 (US$149) for the elderly.

Nasheed also pointed out the importance of introducing a development bank in the Maldives.

“Take a look, this manifesto will not contain even a single policy which has not been accounted for. Even if we are asked to submit a budget to the parliament by tomorrow, we are ready to do so,” Nasheed told a crowd of 8,000 on Saturday (August 24).

The current government’s  – of which the PPM is a partner – decided to suspend development projects this year after the state was found to have exhausted its annual budget for recurrent expenditure (including salaries, allowances and administration costs) in the first quarter of 2013.

President Dr. Mohamed Waheed Hassan has blamed the current economic situation on the excesses of the Nasheed government.

The decision was made in same month that currency reserves in the Maldives were found to have “dwindled to critical levels”, according to the World Bank’s biannual South Asia Economic Focus report.

Criticisms made by Yameen in Kudahuvadhoo were also addressed at the MDP rally earlier in the week, with Nasheed railing against politicians who campaign by promising gifts to certain individuals and communities.

Jumhoree Party (JP) candidate Ibrahim Gasim has come under fire from both the MDP and the PPM this week, with PPM spokesman Ahmed Nihan describing the JP’s campaign as effectively “dumping money” in certain parts of the country.

Former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom also travelled to Kudahuvadhoo as the campaign entered its final ten days. The PPM leader told the island’s people that the “shattered” economy could only be mended by his half-brother Yameen.

“Our economy is seriously damaged and destroyed. This is not the way it should be, and this is not how it was before either,” said Gayoom.

After succeeding Gayoom, Nasheed was said to have inherited “the most challenging macroeconomic situation of all democratic transitions that have occurred since 1956”, according to the World Bank.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Maldives economy “seriously damaged and destroyed”: former President Gayoom

Former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom has expressed concern that the Maldivian economy has been “seriously damaged and destroyed”.

Speaking during a campaign rally on the island of Kudahuvadhoo in Dhaalu Atoll, Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) Leader Gayoom was quoted by Sun Online expressing concern at the “serious economic problems” presently facing the country.

Gayoom argued that PPM presidential candidate Abdulla Yameen was the most capable person to save the country’s economy based on his previous government experience.

The PPM, which has the second highest number of MPs behind the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP), is part of the current coalition government of President Dr Mohamed Waheed that came to power after the controversial transfer of power on February 7, 2012.

The former President’s concerns were raised as the Maldives Monetary Authority (MMA) this month criticised current levels of government expenditure as being “beyond appropriate”.

However, Finance Minister Abdulla Jihad responded at the time that efforts had been successful over the last twelve months to curb recurrent government expenditure, while state borrowing had remained consistent.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Comment: Revisiting the Maldives’ transition to democracy

This article was first published on Dhivehi Sitee. Republished with permission.

The first multiparty presidential election of 2008 in Maldives saw an end to the 30-year dictatorship of Maumoon Abdul Gayoom and the adoption of a modern democracy for the first time in the Maldives. Nevertheless, as in many other nascent democracies, there is real doubt whether Maldives can sustain its democracy in its fullest sense, especially after the recent coup that ousted the first democratically elected president in February 2012.

Some scholars argue that the mode of democratic transition a country experiences proves to be a critical factor in determining the country’s democratic future. Hence, an analysis of the mode of democratic transition that occurred in Maldives may help in predicting whether democracy could be sustained in future.

Political scientist Samuel Huntington argues that the process of democratisation could be determined based on ‘the relative importance of governing and the opposition groups as the sources of democratisation’.

He identifies three broader modes of democratisation; (1) ‘transformation’ (from above) occurs when the regime itself takes initiative in bringing democracy; (2) ‘replacement’ (from below) occurs when opposition groups take the initiative and replace the regime by bringing democracy; and (3) ‘transplacement’ (through bargain) occurs when both government and opposition work together to bring about democracy.

My aim here is to analyse the process of democratisation in Maldives in terms of the theories offered by Huntington, and identify the modes of democratic transition that occurred in Maldives.

This in turn may help predict the future sustenance of democracy in Maldives. I will argue that no one particular mode of democratisation occurred in Maldives as none of them materialised fully. However, various efforts from the current opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP), together with the leadership of Mohamed Nasheed, have contributed significantly to the process and facilitated negotiations with the regime leading to democratisation.

To achieve the stated-aim, I will discuss the major events that contributed to the democratisation process in Maldives by relating them to the modes of transition outlined above.

The initial period of democratic struggle – a period of near ‘replacement’

The initial period of the struggle for democracy in Maldives depicts characteristics of ‘replacement’ where citizens started to challenge the regime through various means and made attempts to overthrow the autocratic government. The first serious challenge to dictator Gayoom was in 1988, with a failed coup attempt carried out by Sri Lankan Tamil mercenaries financed by wealthy Maldivians. A year after the attempted coup, the election of western-educated young politicians to the parliament in 1989 resulted in increased pressure for democratic reforms.

However, many of them and their family members faced significant threats from the regime and some of them were imprisoned for various politically motivated charges[3]. The regime continued to suppress major opposition figures through arbitrary arrests. In 2001, Mohamed Nasheed – both a Member of Parliament and a major opposition figure – was arrested and imprisoned for two and half years. The same year, the opposition MDP made their first attempt to formally register themselves as a political party. The Home Ministry, mandated to register civic organisations, sent the petition to parliament where it was overwhelmingly rejected.

On September 20, 2003, civil unrest broke out in the capital Male’ sparked by the death of prison inmate Hassan Evan Naseem. Evan was tortured to death by security forces during an interrogation. News of his death led to riots in the prison and a subsequent shootout by the police that killed three more inmates and injured many others. The news spread throughout Maldives, becoming the major trigger for many to publicly demand democratic reforms.

Since the September unrests, Gayoom came under tremendous pressure from both domestic and international actors that compelled him to announce democratic reforms. On June 2004, during an informal meeting, Gayoom announced his proposed changes to the Constitution including two term limits for the president, direct election of the president, measures to increase separation of powers and removing the gender bar for political participation. Moreover, he urged citizens to publicly debate his proposals. The opposition were still very sceptical about Gayoom’s real intentions and raised doubts about whether he could bring about concrete reforms.

However, the reform announcement itself facilitated the opposition to organise more activities publicly. Matt Mulberry from the International Center on Nonviolent Conflict, argues that the reforms announced by Gayoom ‘technically gave citizens freedom of speech and freedom of assembly’. As a result, some citizens organised a series of “minivan debates” (‘minivan’ means ‘independent’ in Dhivehi) where they discussed the political issues facing the country. Unsurprisingly, the government sent police to disrupt these debates, eventually declaring them illegal.

Despite these repressive actions, the opposition organised a huge protest on August 12-13, 2004 to mark the death of Evan Naseem and demanded reforms, including the release of political prisoners. A record number of citizens took part in the protest which became the largest political gathering ever in the history of Maldives at that time.

The crackdown that followed the protest led to the arrest of hundreds of activists and injured many protesters. As a result, violence erupted in capital Male’ and other parts of the country. Despite the oppressed media, news of the regime’s repressive actions attracted the attention of many international actors. By then, President Gayoom faced immense pressure from the UK, US, India and Sri Lanka to bring about political reforms.

From ‘replacement’ to ‘transplacement’ – a period of joint action

The mounting international pressure and political instability in Maldives led to a new phase in the democratisation process as the regime agreed to have serious negotiations with the opposition. The willingness of joint action from both the regime and the opposition led to a period of ‘transplacement’ in the democratisation process. The regime agreed to sit with the opposition for the first time in the UK.

During the negotiations, the regime agreed to more reforms including formation of independent oversight bodies such as the Police Integrity Commission and the Judicial Services Commission. Moreover, informal talks between reformers within the regime and the opposition were held in Sri Lanka facilitated by the British High Commissioner.

However, the lack of true commitments from the regime led the opposition to realise that international pressure alone would not help bring down the autocratic leadership. Hence, they increased their efforts in organising more protests, speeches and sit-ins. As a result of the mounting support for the opposition’s cause, reformers within the government increased their efforts in pressuring Gayoom to implement urgent reforms.

The pressure from a few reformers within the government and the opposition MDP led to a period of ‘transformation’ where the regime was compelled to take reform actions. In April 2005, the then Attorney General Dr Hassan Saeed overturned his predecessor’s decision by issuing a formal legal opinion to allow the registration of political parties. In June 2005, the parliament unanimously voted in favour of a resolution to allow multi-party democracy for the first time in Maldives. The MDP – the main opposition party – led by Mohamed Nasheed was formally registered, along with several other political parties representing different views. In March 2006, the regime published a roadmap that ‘included 31 proposals for revision of the Constitution, a series of time-bound commitments on human rights, and proposals to build institutions and mobilise civil society’.

However, many still doubted whether the regime was committed to real reforms. Ahmed Shaheed (then Foreign Minister) later argued that, through the reform agenda, Gayoom was seeking to get rehabilitated and thereby stabilise his presidency. He argued that, by 2007, Gayoom had achieved his aim by gaining widespread domestic support and getting rehabilitated.

However, new cracks that significantly weakened the regime emerged as those most closely associated with the reform agenda left the government. On 5th August 2007, both Dr Hassan Saeed and Mohamed Jameel (Justice Minister) resigned from their posts. They claimed that working outside Gayoom’s regime was the only option to advance their reform agenda. Later on the same month, Ahmed Shaheed resigned from the post of Foreign Minister, accusing the government of stalling democratic reforms. These developments saw more public support for the opposition reform movement. After several disagreements with the Special Majlis (Special Parliament), Gayoom ratified the new Constitution in August 2008, allowing key democratic reforms and paving way for the first multi-party presidential election in October that year.

Democracy sustainable?

As evident from the discussion above, three modes of democratisation have contributed to the democratisation process in Maldives, though characteristics of ‘transformation’ are very little. Interestingly, there appears to be a correlation between each mode as the occurrence of one type led to the other. This observation therefore contradicts Huntington’s view that the three modes of democratisation are alternatives to one another.

However, it is important to note the significant role played by the opposition MDP, especially Mohamed Nasheed as the leader who never took a step back in his quest to bring democracy to Maldives. It is clear that MDP played the most critical role in the process of democratisation. I have previously argued that Gayoom is the major obstacle to sustaining democracy and the threat is heightened more than ever with his current political activeness.

Reflecting on the process of democratisation and the strong influence of Gayoom on many institutions till today, I still doubt sustenance of democracy in the Maldives. Similar to the 2008 election, this year’s election is very much a choice between democracy and autocracy.

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)

Umar Naseer requests Supreme Court ruling on party membership

Former Vice President of the Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) Umar Naseer has filed for a Supreme Court ruling requesting the court declare how a person becomes a member of political party.

Speaking to local media outlet Sun Online, Naseer said that the procedure as to how a person becomes a member of political party were unclear as per the Political Parties Act. Therefore the case was filed at the court requesting it to make a clarification on the matter, added Naseer.

“It has to be cleared whether a person becomes a member of political party after he submits the form to the party office or whether the person is registered in the elections commission as a member of the said party. This is unclear. This is what I want to seek from Supreme Court,” he said.

The application for the ruling comes shortly after Civil Court dismissed his case challenging the legitimacy of the PPM’s presidential primary in which Naseer lost to Abdulla Yameen.

Naseer has since been removed from the party after accusing his rival of rigging the vote to secure his victory.

The Civil Court ruling stated that Umar Naseer has the opportunity to appeal the decision of the disciplinary committee with the party’s own appeal committee.

The court referred to Naseer’s accusations that the party’s disciplinary committee was under the influence of certain figures within the party, but said he was not able to prove these accusations.

The Civil Court said that unless this was proved otherwise the court had to consider that the disciplinary committee and appeal committee of the PPM were functioning as stated in the party’s charter.

In May, Naseer resubmitted the case at the Civil Court to try and invalidate the outcome of the Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) primary vote.

The previous case seeking to invalidate the PPM primary was submitted by party member Rahma Moosa, who alleged that thousands of voters were not officially registered with the PPM at the time they cast votes on their preferred party candidate.

Rahma Moosa reportedly filed the case claiming that 8,915 people who were not officially registered as members of PPM had been allowed to vote in the primary. She contended that the move contravened the Political Party Act and compromised the rights of all general members of the party.

Meanwhile the elections commission has expressed concerned over alleged fraud involved in signing members to political parties ahead of the election.

On Tuesday, the Elections Commission sent a fraud case involving President Mohamed Waheed Hassan’s Gaumee Iththihaadh Party (GIP) after in found 11 membership forms had been filled out in the name of people who had died long before their signature appeared.

The Chair of the Commission Fuwad Thowfeeq said the commission decided to send the matter to police after it identified evidence of wrongdoing.

“If a person dies, or should their legal age come up to 18 years, they are automatically entered into our database. But in GIP’s case, they have deliberately filled out the forms on [members’] behalf. So certainly there is wrongdoing involved in it,” he said.

He said that the commission was currently probing into a case sent to it by the Anti Corruption Commission (ACC) regarding another fraud case concerning GIP’s party membership. The ACC claimed of 100 GIP members polled, 85 had no knowledge of ever joining the party.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Jumhoree Party undecided over joining election coalition ahead of national conference

The government-aligned Jumhoree Party (JP) has said no decision has been made on whether to join a coalition backing President Dr Mohamed Waheed in September’s election, as it prepares to officially choose it presidential candidate and leader.

Vice-chair of the JP’s Congress Committee Mohamed Haleem has told Minivan News that the party’s candidate for this year’s presidential election will officially be announced in June during its national conference.

He said that the party’s leader chosen at the conference would then go on to become presidential candidate of the JP.  However, Haleem added that he was presently unaware if anyone would be contesting against current party leader and founder MP Gasim Ibrahim.

Earlier this month,  the government-aligned Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) announced it would be joining the religious conservative Adhaalath Party and the Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP) in a coalition backing President Waheed. The DRP is the largest party in terms of MP numbers to so far back President Waheed, whose own Gaumee Ithihaad Party (GIP) party  has no political representation in either parliament or local councils.

Despite serving with the DQP, GIP, Adhaalath Party, DRP and Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) in the present government, Haleem added that the JP was committed to unveiling its own presidential candidate, as well as preparing contests to appoint other senior leadership during its three day national conference.

The JP was founded by MP Gasim, a resort tycoon, business magnate and member of watchdog body the Judicial Services Commission (JSC), who is considered presidential candidate for the party having already stood during the country’s first multi-party democratic election in 2008.

However, Haleem told Minivan News that the party’s presidential candidate would only be known when announced next month during the three day congress scheduled to run from June 27 to June 29.

“The main aims of the conference will be to amend certain party regulations as well as host an election for the position of party leader and other appointees like deputy leader,” he said. “We will also look to appoint members to different wings of the party.”

Haleem claimed that no discussions would be held during the conference over the possibility of joining President Waheed’s coalition, adding that any agreement on power sharing was presently considered a separate matter from its internal elections.

Coalition consideration

MP Gasim was reported in local media last month as claiming he would be prepared to form a coalition with other parties ahead of September’s election, but would not stand as a running mate of another candidate.

Just a day earlier, JP Spokesman Moosa Ramiz said the party had ruled out the idea of forming a coalition with fellow government-aligned parties ahead of this year’s elections, despite its involvement in recent power sharing talks with President Waheed.

“National stability”

As rival candidates begin to position themselves ahead of elections, GIP spokesperson Abbas Adil Riza last week claimed voters would shun the country’s two largest political parties in favour of the “national stability” offered by a coalition representing the current government.

Meanwhile the fellow government-aligned PPM – the country’s second largest party in terms of number of MPs –back in March elected MP Abdulla Yameen to stand as its presidential candidate and has continued to reject calls to join a coalition against the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) ahead of elections.

Former Maldives President and founder of the PPM, Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, previously told local media that Dr Waheed’s coalition presented no threat to the election bid of its own candidate MP Abdulla Yameen.

Meanwhile, MDP presidential candidate Mohamed Nasheed contended during an interview with state broadcaster Television Maldives (TVM) on May 16 that President Waheed and the DRP has been forced to form a coalition out of necessity.

Nasheed questioned the coalition’s claims that it presented a “third way” for voters as opposed to the policies of the MDP and PPM and reiterated his belief that power-sharing coalitions were not compatible with a presidential system of government.

“I do not see a citizen who wants ‘another way.’ What is the path to deliver this way [to development]? We do not hear [political parties] talking about that,” he said. “We are presenting one path to that [development]. We believe MDP’s policies will bring prosperity to the people. I do not see this third way you referred to as ‘a way.’ I see it as two men with no other way. That is not a political philosophy,” he said.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)