Tag: Mohamed Nasheed

Asia can no longer follow West’s polluting ways: South China Morning Post

“For decades, Asian leaders largely ignored climate change. It’s a Western problem, we said. They caused the problem by dumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere; let them clean it up,” write former Maldivian President Mohamed Nasheed and former President of East Timor José Ramos-Horta in the South China Morning Post.

“Instead, we Asian leaders focused on reducing poverty by growing our economies. We were not responsible for the pollution, we argued; so we should not have to pay for it. Yes, Asia’s industrialisation was quietly building up toxic stores of carbon, but we were only following the rich world’s prescription for success. Carbon equals growth, it said; and, like those who took up smoking on the doctor’s orders, we were not to blame.

There was a time when the assumptions underpinning this line of thinking were true. Not any more.

Climate change has become malignant. It threatens to blunt Asia’s growth and upend our development. Climate scientists are increasingly certain that catastrophic weather events – such as the 2011 floods in Thailand, one of history’s costliest disasters, or last year’s Typhoon Haiyan, which killed thousands of people in the Philippines – will become more frequent and intense.

From small island states to delta settlements, Asia is the climate front line. Seven of the 10 countries most vulnerable to climate change are in Asia and the Pacific. Millions of Asians are at risk. It falls to Asian governments, whose primary responsibility is to protect their citizens, to respond.”

Read more

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Government will not seek to speed up Nasheed’s trial, says President Yameen

Read this article in Dhivehi

President Abdulla Yameen has said that the current government will not try to push the courts to speed up the trial of former President Mohamed Nasheed, who was charged for “unlawful arrest of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed’’.

Local media did report, however, that Yameen noted the opposition leader must be sentenced if there is rule of law in the country.

Speaking at a ceremony held to open the campaign office of the Progressive Party of Maldives’ Majlis candidate for the Maafannu-West constituency, Yameen noted that there were things the government could to expedite proceedings, but said that the government did not wish to enter the criminal justice procedure.

Yameen also said that international groups had no concerns over this issue or any other other issues such as the delay in appointment of a new prosecutor general (PG) – which has led to a backlog of over 500 cases.

A UN report on the independence of judges last year did make mention of the Nasheed case, noting that it was “difficult to understand why one former President is being tried for an act he took outside of his prerogative, while another [Maumoon Abdul Gayoom] has not had to answer for any of the alleged human rights violations documented over the years.”

In July 2012, Nasheed and Former Defense Minister Tholhath Ibrahim were charged with violating Article 81 of the penal code, which states that the detention of a government employee who has not been found guilty of a crime is illegal.

If found guilty, Nasheed and Tholhath will face a jail sentence or banishment of three years or a fine of MVR3000 (US$193.5).

The case was first filed at the Hulhumalé Magistrate Court before Nasheed’s legal team argued that it did not have jurisdiction to preside over the case, filing a procedural issue at the High Court.

The Judicial Services Commission (JSC) appointed a three member panel consisting of judges Shujau Usman, Abdul Nasir Abdul Raheem, and Hussain Mazeed to hear Nasheed’s procedural issue.

Before the court reached a conclusion on the issue, however, the  JSC suspended Chief Judge in the High Court bench Ahmed Shareef before changing Judge Mazeed and Judge Usman to the Civil Court.

Since this time, no hearings of the case have been conducted or scheduled.

Abdulla Mohamed’s arrest

Abdulla Mohamed was a central figure in the downfall of the former president. He was detained by the military in January 2012 after the government accused him of political bias, obstructing police, stalling cases, having links with organised crime.

The home minister at the time described the judge as “taking the entire criminal justice system in his fist” to protect key figures of the former dictatorship from human rights and corruption cases.

The chief judge was detained after he had opened the court outside normal hours to order the immediate release of the current Vice President Dr Mohamed Jameel Ahmed, arrested after the President’s Office requested an investigation into “slanderous” allegations that the administration was working under the influence of “Jews and Christian priests” to weaken Islam in the Maldives.

Prosecutor general (PG) at that time – the recently resigned Ahmed Muizz – joined the High Court and Supreme Court in condemning the MNDF’s role in the arrest, requesting that the judge be released.

The police are required to go through the PG’s Office to obtain an arrest warrant from the High Court, Muizz said, claiming that the MNDF and Nasheed’s administration “haven’t followed the procedures, and the authorities are in breach of law. They could be charged with contempt of the courts.”

Muizz subsequently ordered the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM) to investigate the matter.

Judge Abdulla’s arrest sparked three weeks of anti-government protests, while the government appealed for assistance from the Commonwealth and UN with reform of the judiciary.

As protests escalated, elements of the police and military mutinied on February 7, alleging that Nasheed’s orders to arrest the judge had been unlawful. A Commonwealth legal delegation had landed in the capital only days earlier.

Nasheed publicly resigned the same day, later saying he had been as forced to do so “under duress” in a coup d’état. A Commonwealth led investigation would later rule the transfer to have been legal.

Judge Abdulla was released on the evening of February 7, and the Criminal Court swiftly issued a warrant for Nasheed’s arrest. Police did not act on the warrant, however, after mounting international concern.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Week in review: February 9 – 15

The Supreme Court’s running battle with the Elections Commission resurfaced this week, with a trial for contempt of court – including the dissolving of political parties – being sprung on commission members.

The Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) slammed the case as an attempt at intimidation prior to the Majlis elections, with Mohamed Nasheed suggesting that an election boycott would do less harm to democracy than participating in a fraudulent poll.

As campaigning for the March elections began in earnest, the MDP criticised the current government’s development plans, while the ruling coalition questioned the opposition’s commitment to separated branches of government.

Estranged coalition member the Adhaalath Party, meanwhile, continued its plan to field candidates in direct competition with its supposed allies, much to the chagrin of Jumhooree Party leader Gasim Ibrahim.

As the government approached 100 days in charge, ambitious plans to double the current pension pot through “innovative” investments were announced, while plans to enhance the role of Islam in society took further shape.

Plans to increase Islamic education are likely to hindered slightly, however, after the Teacher Association revealed its plan for strike action should the government not heed requests for reform. Elsewhere, court employees refusing unpaid overtime were suspended.

The development of Kulhudhuffushi airport appeared a step closer this week, with environmental regulations altered in order to allow dredging of the island’s mangrove.

Local NGO Ecocare continues to view the project as unconstitutional and economically unviable.

The cabinet’s promised discussion on the implementation of the death penalty took place this week, with ministers urging President Abdulla Yameen to establish regulation for execution procedures.

The confession of the country’s most recent recipient of the sentence, Hussein Humam was used as key evidence in the continuing Criminal Court case against his alleged accomplice in the murder of Dr Afrasheem Ali.

The recent recipient of an 18 year sentence for drug trafficking, Ibrahim Shafaz ‘Shafa’ Abdul Razzaq, this week appealed his sentence from Sri Lanka after being allowed to leave the country on medical grounds last week.

Questions regarding the Criminal Court’s own actions were also asked this week as it continued to refuse new cases sent by the the Prosecutor General’s Office, despite requests from the Supreme Court. The new PG will now start the job with a backlog of over 500 cases.

Members of the Majlis national security committee were informed by the Asia Pacific Group of the country’s obligation to enact anti-laundering legislation, while the parliamentary privileges group summoned police to give information on the investigation into the Alhan Fahmy stabbing.

Former Police Integrity Commission Chair Shahindha Ismail this week accused both the Majlis and the police watchdog of “intentional negligence” in investigating the chaos that followed the controversial transfer of presidential power two years ago.

Rising numbers of tourists in Malé led the council to issue a suggestion to all local hoteliers that visitors be made aware of appropriate dress codes in inhabited areas.

The latest figures from the Maldives Monetary Authority revealed that tourist arrivals has risen by 17 percent in 2013, though this was not sufficient to prevent Air Asia X suspending its Maldives services.

Finally, the Maldives slipped further down RSF’s Press Freedom Index, dropping to 107th in the list. Elsewhere in the media, DhiTV and it’s sister station DhiFM Plus were asked to stop broadcasting upside down pictures of Elections Commissioner Fuwad Thowfeek.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Climate injustice an opportunity for more sustainable justice: Nasheed

“I see the injustice created by climate change as an opportunity,” said former President Mohamed Nasheed stated in his keynote address at the “Women Rising for Climate Justice – A Day of Action” event held in Male’ on Thursday night.

Women, poor women in particular, face greater hardships and challenges from climate change injustices, he noted, adding that Nasheed said that three women died for every man who died in the 2004 tsunami.

The event was organised by local NGO Voice of Women (VOW) with Women’s Earth & Climate Action Network (WECAN). It was also in collaboration with ‘One Billion Rising for Justice‘ (a global campaign to end violence against women, calling for justice and gender equality).

Recalling his visits to temporary shelters for victims of the tsunami in Maldives, Nasheed said that hardships faced by women after such a disaster were also far greater. Commenting on the impact of climate change on health, he said the effects were also felt more strongly by women, as individuals and as caregivers.

Conflicts and wars that result from that scarcity of natural resources caused by climate change also have a greater impact on women, Nasheed said.

“We see that women stand up when they face hardships. When women stand up and take action, I believe things improve in a more sustainable manner,” he continued. “I have found their [women’s] work, courage, and willpower to be of an amazing level, especially because of how my life turned out to be in the past two or three years. I am sure you will work to find a solution for this issue. And I believe you can find those solutions. And I believe you can save this world.”

In addition to Nasheed, Minister of Environment and Energy Thoriq Ibrahim also spoke at the event, pledging to raise his voice on behalf of women in climate change issues. He also said increasing women’s participation and protection of women’s rights in social and economic planning is very important to minimise the impacts of climate change.

A statements of encouragement and solidarity sent from female leaders involved in climate change justice was also delivered at the event.

Among those who sent the message were former President of Ireland Mary Robinson, the founder of WECAN Osprey Orielle Lake, and Director of Climate Wise Women Tracy Mann.

A song produced by VOW ‘Climate Justice, Vow with us’ was performed live at the event, before all attendees signed the WECAN declaration ‘Women of the World Call for Urgent Action on Climate Change & Sustainability Solutions’.

The declaration

The declaration was ratified at the International Women’s Earth and Climate Summit held in New York in September 2012. Described as “the clarion call to the women and men of the world” – the declaration targets the global women’s movement for climate action and sustainable solutions “to put the world on notice that women will take action at all levels”.

Calling for the fulfilment of existing international agreements on women’s equality and climate change, the declaration makes a number of demands from governments and communities.

Notable demands of the declaration include the call for a binding climate treaty to reduce carbon emissions under United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), demands to bring atmospheric CO2 concentrations to below 350ppm, to protect 20 percent of the world’s oceans by 2020, and 40 percent by 2040 in marine preserves and sanctuaries.

In terms of energy, it demands the phasing out of fossil fuel subsidies and the introduction of carbon taxes, increasing investment in conservation, energy efficiency, and safe energy, divesting from “dangerous and dirty” fossil fuel developments (such as fracking and deep-water oil drilling) while also rejecting greenhouse gas emissions reductions through high-risk technologies (such as nuclear energy, and geo-engineering).

In climate funding, the declaration demands prioritising and increasing of adaptation funding to build community resilience for ‘”those most affected by climate change” and making them more accessible for community-based groups, including women’s groups.

The declaration also calls for “common but differentiated responsibilities” between the global north and global south in resolving the climate crisis and implementing new economic indicators and structures that encourage sustainability and abandon models for limitless economic growth.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Comment: Talking of another possible coup

Former President and opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) supremo Mohamed Nasheed has given what may be seen by some as a timely warning to the nation and incumbent, Abdulla Yameen, about ‘another coup’.

In doing so, he has implied that there is an urgent need for institutional reforms if such a course is to be averted. In an interview to MDP-supported Raajje TV, he claimed that some Supreme Court Judges were also behind what he reiterated was a ‘coup’ to oust him from office in February 2012 – but did not elaborate or provide substantive evidence.

That there is an urgent need for ‘institutional reforms’ in democratised Maldives is conceded readily by all sections of the nation’s polity. Most leaders now in the fray were also members of the Special Majlis that drafted and adopted the current 2008 constitution. For them to concede that they may have blundered, without actually having the courage to acknowledge it as such, should be welcome.

There is, however, a need for urgency in pursuing these issues within a more substantive and meaningful national dialogue. Such a dialogue may have to wait for a new parliament to be elected in the 22 March polls. It will be equally interesting to observe what various political players have to say on such issues during the current campaign period.

The various political positions that could be taken by different political parties will in turn be based on their own experience with the existing constitution (as they perceive it), and their expectations (as they conceive it). There is no guarantee that they would not err again, but ‘dynamic societies’ like the Maldives would always have to make constant and continuing compromises – either now or later.

It may become more difficult under different circumstances and under newer players on a distant day to attempt such changes.

Mis-reading, mis-leading

The present reference to ‘another coup’ apart, this is the second occasion in almost as many weeks that former President Nasheed is hinting at a change of national leadership. On the earlier occasion, media reports quoted him as saying that the MDP would move a no-confidence motion against President Yameen in the post-poll parliament, and have him removed at the first available opportunity?

Such reports will sound credible only if the MDP is able to muster the required two-thirds majority in what will become an 85-member parliament, up from the current strength of 77. It also implies that all MPs belonging to the party would stand by the leadership and its diktat, to vote out the incumbent. Whether it would have to be accompanied simultaneously by a no-trust move also against the incumbent vice-president – if the political strategy was to ensure early polls to the office of the president – is a moot question.

Alternatively, the MDP – which is still the single largest party – both within the People’s Majlis and outside, could muster those numbers if, and only if, MPs belonging to the ruling coalition led by President Yameen’s Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) were to cross floor, either as constituent parties or individual members.

In a country where ‘defection’ has been a password for political survival, both before and after the advent of multi-party democracy, such a scenario is not unimaginable.

In this background, Nasheed’s caution towards the incumbent and the nation is likely to be mis-read and hence misunderstood. Whatever the scenario one were to look at, such a scare has the potential to destabilise the nation’s polity and political administration all over again. In political terms, it could become an electoral tool in the hands of the adversaries of President Nasheed and the MDP, in that order, during the run-up to next month’s polls.

In the ensuing melee, both the MDP and former President Nasheed could be dubbed ‘over-ambitious’ and politically greedy – which need not be the case. The two will have to remember that within the high vote-share for Nasheed in the final-round poll in the November elections, a substantial numbers were ‘non-party’, non-committed voters. Given the turbulent, and at times violent, turn that multi-party democracy has taken since inception in 2008, this section of voters in particular could feel ‘uneasy’ and ‘uncomfortable’.

Going by the second scenario, encouraging defection can cut both ways. The present parliament saw both the MDP losing and gaining from defections. To an extent, it also dependent on the ‘incumbency’ factor. It was among the various factors that helped the MDP become the single largest party after coming second in the 2009 parliamentary polls, and later going on to become the ‘majority party’ as well.

Cross-voting, if not outright defection, also worked against the party’s diktat when MDP parliamentarians more recently helped ensure the mandated Majlis clearance for President Yameen’s cabinet.

It is the third of Nasheed’s possible apprehensions about a ‘possible coup’which should be of greater concern. It is here that his reassurance that he “will do everything” in his “personal capacity” to prevent a coup from taking place assumes significance. Given the context, and the MDP’s claims to his losing power to a coup in the past, it has now become morally, if not legally, binding on both to share whatever details that might come their way, now or in the future, with the nation and the government of the day.

In the same vein, however, Nasheed has possibly reiterated his past reference to a no-confidence vote when telling Raajje TV that “we will work within the legal ambit to ensure that the transition of power takes place through an election”. This may have made the earlier ‘reassurance’ as unsettling as it may be untimely – not only for the nation but possibly for the MDP too.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Q&A: Former President Mohamed Nasheed

With two years having passed since his controversial removal from power, Mohamed Nasheed – Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) figurehead, and runner-up in November’s presidential election – speaks with Minivan News about past controversies, the present government, and the future of Maldivian democracy.

Daniel Bosley: Looking back, what do you feel are the long-term effects of February 7 – on yourself personally, as a politician, and on the MDP?

Mohamed Nasheed: It’s not so much on what I have personally experienced but I think if you look at what has happened to the country after  the forceful transfer. We had in 2008 amended the constitution after a very very long period of single party dictatorial rule. One of the main difficulties in Maldives politics has been transfer of power – the peaceful transfer of power. In the past, transfer of powers have been mostly violent. It’s always surrounded by an aura of illegitimacy, irregular or all kinds of conflict. In some instances, former presidents are murdered, and in others they are banished or send into exile, so the transfer of power has always been an issue for us, and one of the main reasons for the 2008 constitution was to provide for a transfer of power.

If you have a look at the first constitution of the Maldives in 1932, even then the main reason for that constitution was to see who would assume power after the sultan at that time – Shamsuddeen – would it be his son or someone else. So, while transfer of power has been so fundamental – so important – for our stability and for our development, and while the constitution aims at providing a mechanism for that transfer, in 2012 we saw the state being very violently challenged and the transfer being very forcefully done.

What therefore that leads to – especially when the international community legitimised that transfer – it looks like it is normal. Now, come mid-term, any other group of politicians or any other group of people can again attempt to transfer power because apparently this is legal. I think that because that transfer was legitimised, that this is going to crop up in our political life on and on and on again.

DB: As a historian yourself, how do you feel the last two years will be viewed by future generations in terms of the country’s history?

The two years of [Dr Mohamed] Waheed’s coup government and then the interference of the Supreme Court in the election process, and therefore the ability for them to consolidate power through the facade of the ballot box, has of course installed them in power. But I would still argue that this is fairly temporary. I wouldn’t see this as having achieved long-term stability. This is very early in the day and we can now already see the cracks. [President Abdulla] Yameen with 25 percent of consent would find it very difficult to rule – it’s not going to be possible. And the idea that an alliance of Yameen and Gasim and Adhaalath can be maintained is I think a myth, and you’re seeing this now.

We’ve always argued that this doesn’t work. Coalitions work in parliamentary systems where you can actually have ministers coming out from the parliament and therefore it’s possible to come to an arrangement. But when the cabinet is not in the parliament, an alliance doesn’t necessarily work. The shuffling or the portions given to different parties are given from the cabinet, and the cabinet is a very superficial layer on the government. The actual essence is the parliament where you make the laws.

As long as you don’t have a coalition or an understanding in the parliament then this doesn’t work. So when Yameen and Gasim and Adhaalath cannot decide on sharing all the seats they would share, I think they finds themselves in a lot of difficulties

DB: There have been reports that you ordered the withdrawal of police from the artificial beach area on February 6, as well as the removal of the MNDF cordon from Republic Square the next morning. Looking back, would you have handled things differently in the run up to the transfer?

I was getting reports of a coup from General Nilam, who was intelligence chief of the military, and he’d been reporting the coup since the end of the SAARC summit [November 2011]. Soon after the summit he wrote his first dispatch, his first intelligence reports, and he has sent a number of intelligence reports saying that this was brewing.

Now, the perpetrators of the coup, or those who were scheming it – the opposition and the judiciary were with them. We were not able to investigate General Nilam’s findings – or his intelligence reports – because the courts wouldn’t allow us to do that and therefore, although we knew that this was coming up, we found it very difficult to attend to it or suppress it without forceful means, which in the legislative framework it was almost impossible because the judiciary were hijacked by Gayoom-era judges.

Now, did I ask the police to withdraw the cordon at the artificial beach? First, in our government I don’t give detailed orders to the rank and file of the police. Neither do I do that to the military. Withdrawal of the police at that instance from there, if it was the proper thing or not? If the police hadn’t withdrawn at that instant I think – given the intransigence of the police, given that the police were scheming – the chief of police and a fair amount of us knew at the time that there were elements within the police who were in the coup scheme. So, I think that the police or anyone who was instructing the police there would know the risks of having a hostile police force trying to maintain peace between the MDP supporters and the present government supporters.

General Nilam was sending intelligence reports that were fed to the police and everyone else. The police themselves had a number of reports saying that trouble was brewing up and that this had spread into the police and the military. The extent that it had gone into military I didn’t know at that time – I didn’t think it was to that extent – but to the police, we knew it very well. Those who were in charge knew it very well and, while the police were in the scheme, to assume that they would maintain peace between MDP and the opposition – that was difficult to understand and I think they wanted the MNDF there.

DB: So, essentially, it’s diffcult to think of any way you could have handled things differently?

MN: Oh yeah, we could have shot everyone. It’s essentially very simple to suppress a public uprising, it’s fairly simple, but the question is always ‘would you want to do that’. We didn’t think this was a proper thing to do, We didn’t think there should have been a confrontation between the MDP and our opposition and it was very unfortunate that the police behaved so badly. I still believe that these people must be prosecuted, I still believe that [Mohamed] Nazim, the minister of defense, must be prosecuted.

DB: What lessons did you take from the presidential election loss – about yourself, about your party, about your country?

MN: We’d come from a very small idea – to become the leading political party in this country. When you ask me that question – let’s say this country had a very long history of democratic politics, and let’s say that those who had done the work to democratise the country had passed away and those who were facing the election at this instant didn’t have a knowledge of what happened before. Now because our changes were so recent, and it has been so substantial, it’s simply amazing how 105,000 people of this country decided that they want to change.

I would argue that the ancien regime – the Gayoom regime – lost it. With all the institutions, with everything, the vast majority of the people of this country wanted an MDP government, which would have been a more open government, which would have been more international, which would have been more tolerant, which would have departed from our normal things – far away from what any other presidential candidate would have done.

To have got that mandate – to depart from so feudal a system, I think is just very very amazing and I’m very happy about it. I think we’ve installed the MDP as a political force, as a political party that is here to stay. Gayoom’s PPM [Progressive Party of Maldives] changes – from DRP [Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party] to PPM – but here I think we have been able to maintain.

DB: The religious lobby has been another constant over the past two years’ events, and the slogans used by the now-ruling coalition played a prominent role in the election. How do you see these groups affecting Maldivian politics in the long term?

MN: Again, after all that rhetoric, 105,000 Maldivians simply decided it was rhetoric and there was nothing to it. They were loud but the fact is that they keep losing – Adhaalath party as an idea keeps losing. I think people understand their fabrications.

DB: Looking at the recent MDP primary elections, the leadership has been accused of manipulating certain primary elections to secure seats for more established members. How effect do you feel this affects the reputation of the party and the enthusiasm of its members?

MN: Elections have losers and winners, and very often losers find that they must get time to digest the defeat and therefore there’s always a tendency to blame the process. I think, given the circumstances and the facilities available to political parties such as the MDP, we did very well. We have an elections committee, which functions independently. We have a disciplinary committee and we also have an appeals committee within the party. I’ve seen these three organs functioning very well, and I think the elections were very transparent and there is nothing wrong with that – I’m very very sure of that.

We can’t do that – it’s just not possible. I can’t even tell [close associates] to do it, and then these elections are conducted by hundreds of volunteers. How in God’s name can I ring some fellow down in Maakurath and ask him to fix the ballot? It’s just not possible. It’s too decentralised and it’s too widespread for anyone to fix.

There was an issue for some candidates, with PPM members and Jumhooree Party members and Adhaalath members – previous members – being on our voter lists. Now, the party decided that anyone who joined the party before December 19 would be eligible to vote. Then, if candidates decide to bring in former members from PPM and so on, we increased our party by 16,000 people. Even if they are from other parties – we’ve found that 5000 of them are from other parties. Our experience is that more than 70 percent of them remain even if their candidate loses.

DB: Regarding relations with the new government, you have talked about the MDP acting as a responsible opposition, but also of working to impeach President Yameen. Do you consider this to be a legitimate government with which the MDP intends to cooperate?

MN: The MDP shouldn’t co-operate with any government, the MDP should only co-operate with an MDP government because we are a political party and our position is to contest the opposition – make it accountable. Making it accountable basically really means using the legal processes available to deal with the government. I think President Yameen would very much expect us to make the full use of whatever facilities and mediums are legally available for us. I am sure President Yameen wouldn’t have any other idea – it would be strange if he had any other ideas. [That] we would for instance support their cabinet, we would for instance support their policies – no, we wouldn’t do that. What we would do is we would not do anything illegal.

DB: What are your initial thoughts on the first 100 days of the Yameen presidency and his proposed policies?

MN: One [issue] was slicing the government – distributing government positions among Gayoom families and political parties. Not necesarilly so much political parties, but among their families. [Another is] the number of government positions they have come up with – how huge the government is. I think we are probably now bigger than the Kremlin. It is in fact looking more like a Mughal kingdom. A better comparison would be with Zafar – the last Mughal emperor. Zafar’s government and the number of ministers, the number of courtiers, the number of assistants, the number of everything that they had, and the number of everything that President Yameen is having to have. It’s comical. It’s not really a contentious political issue. It’s sad though because the drain is on the treasury.

We are also looking at how they have honoured sovereign contracts after the transfer of power. They said with the GMR issue, that contract was void ab initio and so on and so forth so we’ll be looking at that. We think that this government is very secretive. We were publishing government income and expenditure every week, they’ve stopped that. We were having a cabinet meeting every week, they’ve stopped that. We were having a press conference every week, they’ve stopped that. We were communicating with the public all the time, and they haven’t done that. We feel that this is a very secretive government.

How they are managing finances: it all looks like how much should we make available for businessman A, for businessmen B. Nothing for social security, nothing for the fishermen, nothing for any of the other people. Taxes keep on coming up but we think that their tax system is again taking the country back to the financial system prior to 2008. They are taking it back to Gayoom’s financial system.

They are not fulfilling any of their pledges. The projects that were ongoing through multinational finance and so on, they’ve all stopped. So we don’t think they are doing a very good job and the people have every right to get rid of them.

DB: What are your initial thoughts on the stabbing of Alhan Fahmy and the safety of politicians?

MN: It’s very dangerous and it’s very worrying. Dr Afrasheem’s murder and the police not being able to do a better job with that, and now Alhan – it’s so sad. So young and so vibrant, and with a bright political future in front of him and cut down in his prime – it’s not good.

DB: Is the MDP’s loss in the presidential election a set back for fight against climate change?

MN: We were doing a lot of international work on climate change and we don’t see that kind of commitment from the present government, and it’s unfortunate. We would like another vulnerable country to pick up the work – someone who is more concerned about these things. I’m speaking to like-minded leaders about this. I’ve just been to Abu-Dhabi for Sheikh Zayed’s future energy prize, which I have been on the jury for the last three years. I did meet a number of heads of state – like-minded people who wanted to do something about it.

DB: What does the future look like for Maldivian democracy? Will you be standing again in 2018?

I’ll be seeking election in 2018, and I think we have a bright future. But the immediate future is bleak, I would argue – it’s difficult.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Comment: Balancing political myth and poll realities

Barring the symbolic pay-cuts for junior ministers at its inception, an 80-plus team for a 77-member parliament appears to fly in the face of President Abdulla Yameen’s promise of a lean and efficient government.

It also adds fuel to the off-again/on-again debate on the existing presidential form of government as, under the Westminster parliamentary scheme, there cannot be more ministers than MPs, which there are now. The situation is not going to change, even with the addition of eight more MPs at the end of the 22 March parliamentary polls.

Yet, the numbers also speak for the reality of ‘coalition politics’ that the Maldivian psyche has come to acknowledge – and, in a way, accept. Whether or not it will find continued acceptance will be influenced by the conduct of the coalescing partners. Independent of the players involved, for the concept to succeed, the present-day players have the arduous task of ensuring that theirs is ‘collective governance’ and not ‘collective non-governance’ under mutual threat and political blackmail.

The concept of ‘coalition politics’ was overlooked at the inception of multi-party democracy in 2008. Whatever the defence, former President Mohamed ‘Anni’ Nasheed and his Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) paid a heavy price for wantonly overlooking this reality. Five years later, ‘coalition politics’ is becoming institutionalised, going beyond the half-hearted ministry-making of 2008, now extending to seat-sharing for the local council polls (17 January) before the upcoming parliamentary elections.

This is how coalitions begin, but it is not how they should work. It is inevitable under the circumstances, however, considering that the monolith MDP opposition is threatening to ‘impeach’ President Yameen if they get closer to a two-thirds majority in the post-election parliament. The price that the incumbent may have to pay has the potential to make a mockery of the ‘coalition’ concept as a whole. Yet, such threats could irritate voters.

It is here that the Maldives and Maldivians will have to search for answers to some of the questions on the ‘coalition compulsions’ of Third World democracy. At the other end of the spectrum was the possibility of ‘anarchy’ as one such answer. The Maldives has already had a taste of it while under the scheme of multi-party democracy.

Thankfully, the nation rejected it even as it was cooking. Circumstances leading up to religious NGOs’ hijacking of what was essentially a political process at the height of the post-SAARC social turmoil was where it started – but more and new could follow at intermittent intervals if the polity and society are not vigilant.

In a democracy, it is not the job of the opposition to keep the government together and/or efficient. The shoe, for all concerned, is on the other foot. Either they can all learn the lessons that the nation’s short stint with democracy has taught them. Or, they can continue with their waywardness and the accompanying blame game. They will end up blaming the nation in the end, for what they would then say was the ‘wrong choice’. Given the consolidation of democracy in the country over the past five years, it would not be among the casualties. Or, that is the hope.

Either way, the Maldives and Maldivian polity have enough to learn from Third World democracies like India, not because it is the largest neighbour but more because it is also the world’s largest democracy – and a ‘coalition democracy’ at that. Going beyond national politics, which too is in its infancy, India has enough lessons for itself and the rest on how governmental coalitions should be run, as in states like Kerala and Tamil Nadu. There are also examples of either in other South Asian nations like Sri Lanka and Nepal, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. The Maldives and Maldivians need not insist on re-inventing the wheel.

‘Two-party system’ that was not

After having shown the door to coalition partners from the presidential polls of 2008, the ruling MDP said at the end of parliamentary polls only months later that Maldivians had settled for a two-party system of sorts. It flowed from the relatively high number of seats that the pre-split Opposition Dhivehi Raayathunge Party of predecessor President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom had won, followed by the MDP.

Subsequent events and developments, including the controversial power-transfer of February 7 2012 proved otherwise. In a way, the 2013 election consolidated political ‘gains’ in favour of ‘coalition politics’ – with distinctive political and non-political ‘social’ groups coming together on a single-point, anti-Nasheed agenda.

Prior to the evolution of the ‘December 23 Movement’ in 2012, the Gayoom leadership had taken pride in having promoted the Maldives as a ‘moderate Islamic State’, and having opened up island-resorts to improve the nation’s economy during his decades-long presidency. Under the new banner of the Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM), they found strange bedfellows in religion-centric parties and NGOs that campaigned on the platform of ‘Islam’ platform to have President Nasheed ousted.

What is interesting in the reverse just now is that the 2013 presidential polls were not fought exactly on religious lines. The MDP may well complain about the presence of the Islam-centric Adhaalath Party (AP) in the fold of the opposing coalition. The party had sought and obtained the AP’s support in the second-round of presidential polls in 2008. It had accommodated the AP in the Nasheed government at all levels even when the party did not win a single seat in the subsequent parliamentary polls of 2009.

Though too early to say, the Yameen administration has successfully marginalised religious NGOs from any active-say in the day-to-day affairs of the government. They did not have any big role in Elections-2013. Whatever the end-game, the Jumhooree Party partner in the PPM coalition has thus far displayed calculated reluctance in accommodating the AP in seat-sharing for the parliamentary polls. The AP has since announced its decision to go it alone for the parliamentary polls.

‘Malé dynasties’ and beyond

Whatever the results of the parliamentary polls in March, and whatever the political consequences, the nation’s polity should be prepared for the day when emerging social changes are reflected in electoral politics. Independent of political and economic differences (purportedly based on ideology but personality-driven, mostly), Maldivian politics is driven by the ‘Malé dynasties’. The tendency for the nation to move away from Malé-centric, urban middle class politics was visible during the presidential election, and in more ways than one.

On the one hand, former President Nasheed’s MDP vote-share in the 2013 polls was no more urban-centric than in 2008. He did establish considerable leads in the islands as well. At the same time, Nasheed also lost some percentage points against expectations in the urban centres in what turned out to be a three-phase poll.

What cannot be similarly overlooked was Gasim Ibrahim improving upon his 2008 first-round tally of a 15-plus percent vote-share to 23 percent five years hence. In the final analysis, it was seen that Gasim, an ‘outsider’ to the ‘Male dynasty’ politics in ways, could transfer his vote-share in favour of PPM’s Yameen in the decisive second-round, almost in its entirety. It is doubtful if President Nasheed, who is acknowledged as the most charismatic leader in the country and the MDP, the single most popular party, could similalry transfer his votes to any other candidate of his choice.

Yet Yameen and the JP have other things to prove to themselves and the rest. In the 2009 parliamentary polls, for instance, Gasim could not ‘transfer’ his vote-share to party colleagues. He was the lone JP candidate to bag a seat in the People’s Majlis. His ‘transferability’ is again under test in the approaching March polls, where the JP has nine seats to contest in the PPM coalition.

It is acknowledged that the Nasheed votes this time owed also to the ‘Gayoom factor’ that the MDP could successfully propagate, just as the divided opposition of the time could do in 2008. Then, as now, the election in a way was won in the second round, on a ‘coalition plank’ against a single candidate – former President Gayoom then, and former President Nasheed now. Crudely argued, it could mean that both faced the same predicament of not being acceptable to the majority of Maldivian voters, however contrived it be, through coalition means.

Urban voters in the country comprise a substantial number of islanders. Shorn of their current identification with the ‘urban elite’, the ‘islanders’ are the deciding factor in national elections. The ‘Gasim factor’, of a rags-to-riches ‘outsider’ making it big in business and politics, has the potential to provide the trigger for the medium-term change-over. For historic reasons, it is then bound to find further electoral expression between the ‘South’ and the ‘North’, with urban Male holding the middle and decisive ground in its time.

Between now and five years ago, the new-generation voter will have moved further away from the ‘Gayoom era’, which alone continues to be the mainstay of the MDP’s political agenda and election propaganda. It was visible in the presidential polls last year, when fewer of the first-time urban voters than expected were believed to have voted for the MDP, upset as they were by the street-violence and months-long demonstration that followed the 7 February power-transfer.

With parliamentary elections now due in March, political parties and their leadership will wait until then for stock-taking about their past behavior and plans for the future. They would face different and differentiated issues and problems – from the PPM’s problem of changing with continuity, to the MDP’s need for continuity with change, and the JP’s compulsion for not changing yet continuing.

The answer for each one of them, and others outside of the list, lies as much with the rest as with themselves. Coalitions come in all forms, it is for the polity to decipher the intent and content of the society and act accordingly. At the advent of multi-party democracy in the Maldives, it took the natural, political course of coalition politics. It has been thus across the world in post-colonial democracies. But over the past decades of post-colonial survival as democracies, most if not all those nations have adapted western democracy to their ways and waywardness.

The Maldives is still in the process of discovering/re-discovering the local idiom for democratic change. It will take time, but it is inevitable under the circumstances. Modern education, moderate Islam, et al, are only one phase of the process – it is not the complete face, either. It is the preparedness of the nation and its evolving polity to identify those changes and acknowledge them in their framework that will make the difference, both to their own political future and to the future of democracy in the country.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Nasheed lays out MDP legislative agenda

The opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) will work through the People’s Majlis to strengthen the local government system, reform the judiciary and eliminate barriers to development, former President Mohamed Nasheed has said.

“The People’s Majlis’ aim must be to hold the government accountable and strengthen the government,” Nasheed said at a ceremony for candidates who gained the MDP ticket for the parliamentary elections scheduled for March 22.

The MDP released official results of the primaries on Saturday. Polls were held to determine candidates for 56 constituencies, while 28 candidates were granted the party ticket without a primary due to a lack of contestants.

Kaashidhoo MP Abdulla Jabir had initially gained the MDP ticket uncontested, but the party has called for new applicants after Jabir voted for President Abdulla Yameen’s cabinet on December 30 against a three-whip line.

“When primaries are contsted, it strengthens the party. I hope those who lost the primaries will now back the winning candidates and that the entire party works together to win a majority in the People’s Majlis,” Nasheed said.

Nasheed narrowly lost November’s presidential elections with 48.61 percent of the vote.

The Progressive Party of the Maldives’ (PPM) Abdulla Yameen won 51.39 percent with the backing of the Jumhooree Party (JP), Maldives Development Alliance (MDA), and the Adhaalath Party (AP).

The MDP will check the government’s administration of public finances to ensure the economy benefits all citizens, and will monitor the government’s respect for individual rights, he said.

MDP primaries

Incumbent MPs made a strong showing in the MDP’s parliamentary primaries between January 24 and 31. The list of winners can be found here (Dhivehi).

Only Feydhoo MP Alhan Fahmy and Henveiru Dhekunu MP Hamid Abdul Ghafoor lost the party tickets.

Alhan has alleged irregularities in the voter registry and declared he will contest the results after losing the seat to Mohamed Nihad- who received 316 votes to the incumbent’s 154. The party has said it found no grounds to call for a revote.

Alhan is currently undergoing surgery in Sri Lanka after he was severely injured in a stab attack last night. His family alleges the attack was premeditated and politically motivated.

Hamid has said he will support winning candidate ‘Rukuma’ Mohamed Abdul Kareem.

The MDP’s primaries have been marred by suggestions of irregularities. The party was forced to call off its first attempt at polls on January 24 due to poor organisation and voter registry issues.

The MDP election committee chair Ibrahim Waheed said the party had received several complaints regarding additions and reductions to the list of eligible voters. But none of the complaints affect the results, he said.

“The MDP’s membership committee assures me the list was publicised. It is not a secret list.”

Elections Commission figures show 43,000 members registered with the MDP, but 57,000 members were eligible to vote in the party’s primaries.

Waheed said the MDP had received over 12,000 new membership forms in December and had decided to proceed with a list of members who had registered with the party by January 10.

Meanwhile, the governing coalition reached a deal last week on reserving a set number of seats for each party. Of the 85 seats, PPM will contest 49, JP will contest 28 and MDA will contest 8 seats.

The PPM has said it will hold primaries on February 7. PPM members in Laamu Atoll Maavah constituency held protests on Friday claiming the party had handed the party ticket to incumbent Abdul Azeez Jamal Abu Bakr without a primary.

Meanwhile, the JP and MDA have also granted party tickets to incumbents without a primary. JP council members have subsequentlyspoken out against the selection process to determine candidates.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Civil Court declares former police intelligence director’s arrest unlawful

The Civil Court has declared the Maldives Police Services’ arrest of former Director of Police Intelligence Sabra Noordeen on 16 March 2013 unlawful, unwarranted, and an ‘abuse of power’.

The court has also ordered the police to erase the record of the arrest and to issue a written apology.

Speaking to Minivan News today, Sabra said she had filed the case “because I wanted to set a legal precedent which would make the Police think about the wider rights and responsibilities they have to uphold before they exercise their powers.”

The police arrested Sabra upon her arrival at Malé International Airport on 16 March 2013 on the charge of “inciting violence” against a police officer on 5 March 2013 during the arrest of President Mohamed Nasheed. The police also confiscated her passport.

She was then handcuffed in order to be transferred to Dhoonidhoo prison. However, the police took her to Malé instead, and released her after issuing a summons to appear at the police station at a later date for questioning.

Sabra first appealed the Criminal Court warrant at the High Court and asked for compensation for damages. In August 2013, the High Court ruled the warrant valid, but said that Sabra should seek compensation at the Civil Court.

In yesterday’s verdict, the Civil Court noted the Criminal Court had not ordered the police to arrest Sabra, but had provided a warrant authorising her arrest upon the police’s request.

The court said she could only be arrested under such a warrant if there was “a necessity for her arrest”,  and if such a necessity ceases to exist, she should not be arrested “even if the warrant has not expired”.

The Civil Court noted that the High Court judges had deemed Sabra’s quick release on the day of her arrest to have been an indication of the lack of necessity for her arrest.

The Civil Court has also warned that the police’s abuse of power defeats the purpose for which the institution was founded, and would create doubt and fear about the the institution.

The verdict declared that Sabra’s arrest violated her right to protect her reputation and good name as guaranteed by Article 33 of the constitution, and the right to fair administrative action guaranteed by Article 43. The court also found that the police had acted against their primary objectives underlined in Article 244.

Following her arrest in March 2013, Sabra called for police reform in order for the institution to regain public confidence – including the dissolution of Special Operations unit and holding police officers accountable for misconduct and brutality.

“I quit the Maldives Police Service on 8 February 2012 with a profound sense of sadness for the institution and the colleagues I left behind. I do not believe that everyone in the MPS was involved in the mutiny or the coup and I do not believe in blaming everyone in a police uniform,” she wrote in an article detailing the events of her arrest.

Previously, the Criminal Court had declared the police’s arrest of incumbent Vice President Dr Mohamed Jameel Ahmed and the arrest of Ghassaan Maumoon, son of former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, as unlawful.

In 2010, the Civil Court also declared the Maldives National Defense Force’s “protective custody” of current President Abdulla Yameen as unconstitutional, while the Supreme Court ordered the immediate release of both Yameen and Gasim Ibrahim (both members of parliament at the time).

Accusations of brutality and misconduct by MPS officers are common and have been confirmed by various independent state institutions. Among them are the Commission of National Inquiry (CNI) that looked in to the controversial power transfer of February 2012 and two constitutionally prescribed independent institutions – the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives and the Police Integrity Commission.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)