Tag: MPs

Maldives police sign MOU with Turkish counterparts

Police Commissioner Abdulla Riyaz has signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Turkish National Police during his official visit to Turkey.

Alongside Director General of the Turkish National Police, Mehmet Kiliclar, Riyaz signed the Security Cooperation Agreement in order to strengthen the institutional relationship between Turkey and the Maldives.

“The Security Cooperation Agreement will provide important training opportunities for officers of the Maldives Police Service in diverse areas including the combating of transnational organised crime, human trafficking and narcotics abuse and trafficking,” read a statement on the Maldives Police Service (MPS) website.

Writing from Ankara on his personal Twitter feed, Riyaz also mentioned a meeting with the Turkish International Academy against Drugs & Organised Crime, stating that the organisation has assured the MPS support and assistance.

The MPS delegation will be in Turkey until Saturday.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

JSC meetings with Fahmy in attendance “not valid,” concedes Attorney General

Attorney General Aishath Bisham told parliament’s Government Oversight Committee yesterday (June 4) that official meetings of a state institution would not be valid if a member with disputed legal status was in attendance.

In response to a question by MP Ali Waheed, the committee’s chair, Bisham insisted that Mohamed Fahmy Hassan would not have to be reinstated as chair of the Civil Service Commission (CSC) after the Supreme Court ruled that his removal by parliament was unconstitutional.

“My stand on this has not changed at all,” she said.

While Fahmy returned to work following the Supreme Court judgment, both Bisham and her predecessor Aishath Azima Shukoor had contended that he could not remain in the post.

Despite the previous Attorney General informing Fahmy of her legal opinion, the CSC later revealed that Fahmy resumed work after a letter from the President’s Office authorised him to do so.

Fahmy also began participating in meetings of the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) as an ex-officio member in his capacity as CSC chair.

Bisham told the oversight committee last night that she had shared her concerns with the JSC but refused to answer further questions on the issue.

Fahmy was in attendance at a JSC meeting on May 29 where a petition by Bisham to indefinitely suspend High Court Chief Judge Ahmed Shareef was voted through with three votes in favour and one against. Fahmy reportedly abstained in the vote.

Local media meanwhile reported yesterday that the JSC nominated Fahmy to represent the commission on the 13-member Zakat Committee, which was set up to oversee the Zakat trust fund.

At last night’s committee meeting, MP Ali Waheed asked Bisham whether a meeting of any state institution or independent commission with the participation of a member whose legal status was disputed could be valid.

“It would not [be valid],” she replied.

Following her concession, the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP for Thohdhoo in Alif Alif atoll thanked the Attorney General and immediately adjourned the committee meeting.

Supreme Court ruling

Fahmy was dismissed from his CSC post in November 2012 in a no-confidence vote in parliament following an inquiry by the Independent Institutions Committee into allegations of sexual harassment against a CSC employee.

Both Fahmy and the victim were summoned to committee after the complaint was lodged in the first week of June.

Fahmy was alleged to have called the female staff member over to him, taken her hand and asked her to stand in front of him so that others in the office could not see, and caressed her stomach saying ”it won’t do for a beautiful single woman like you to get fat.”

MPs voted 38-32 to approve the committee’s recommendation to remove Fahmy from the post.

The Supreme Court however ruled 6-1 in March 2013 that Fahmy would receive two punishments for the same crime if he was convicted at court following his dismissal by parliament (double jeopardy).

The apex court contended that the Independent Institutions Committee violated due process and principles of criminal justice procedure in dealing with the accused.

Delivering the judgment, Supreme Court Justice Abdulla Saeed reportedly said that a person should be considered innocent unless proven guilty in a court of law and was entitled to protect his reputation and dignity.

In his dissenting opinion, Justice Muthasim Adnan – the only Supreme Court justice with a background in common law – however noted that article 187(a) of the constitution authorised parliament to remove members of the CSC “on the ground of misconduct, incapacity or incompetence.”

Article 187(b) meanwhile states, “a finding to that effect by a committee of the People’s Majlis pursuant to article (a), and upon the approval of such finding by the People’s Majlis by a majority of those present and voting, calling for the member’s removal from office, such member shall be deemed removed from office.”

Justice Adnan argued that an inquiry by a parliamentary committee into alleged misconduct would not be a criminal investigation. Therefore, he added, the oversight committee would not be required to prove guilt to the extent required at trial before making a decision.

He further noted that parliament’s dismissal under the authority of article 187 and a possible conviction at a late date could not be considered meting out two punishments for the same offence.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Committee rejects secret voting for parliamentary no confidence motions

Parliament’s General Purpose Committee has rejected procedural amendments to allow secret voting for no confidence motions, such as one presently scheduled against President Dr Mohamed Waheed.

Committee Chair MP Abdulla Abdul Raheem said the decision, which will now be forwarded to the parliament floor for approval, meant that the existing regulations outlining procedures for no confidence votes approved back in March 2010 would remain in place.

The issue had been sent to the committee by Speaker Abdulla Shahid to settle a “way forward” for no confidence motions after the Supreme Court last month struck down amendments allowing secret voting in parliament, Raheem said today.

The General Purpose Committee Committee voted four to three against the amendment proposed by opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Nazim Rashaad to specify instances whereby parliament could use secret voting and hold sittings behind closed doors, Sun Online reported today.

MPs representing several coalition parties in the unity government of President Waheed, which make up the majority of the committee’s members, all voted against the amendments, with the deciding vote cast by Chairperson Raheem.

Raheem told Minivan News that amendments for secret voting had been rejected over concerns that voting behind closed doors was unconstitutional and may lead to further conflict with the Supreme Court.

Secret voting was the subject of one of two Supreme Court rulings this year to be previously criticised by opposition, government-aligned and independent MPs as an unconstitutional “challenge to the separation of powers.”

In its judgement (Dhivehi) on the constitutionality of secret ballots for no-confidence votes, the Supreme Court majority opinion contended that the rule contravened article 85 of the constitution as well as parliamentary principles and norms of free and democratic societies.

Raheem added that in line with this ruling, the committee had instead chosen to retain existing regulations on no confidence motions that had been in use since March 2010. He claimed these measures had been previously approved by bodies like the International-Parliamentary Union (IPU).

Priority issue

Addressing today’s vote, government-aligned Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) Parliamentary Group Leader Abdulla Mausoom claimed that the rejection of the procedural issue of secret voting had not been a major concern for the party.

“We do not see this is a priority issue at the moment. We are brave enough as a party to vote transparently on these matters,” he said.

Meanwhile, MDP MP and Spokesperson Hamid Abdul Ghafoor claimed that the opposition party would not back away from trying to vote out senior government figures include President Waheed, despite failing to secure a secret ballot.

“[President] Waheed’s no confidence motion still stands, whether the vote is secret or not is irrelevant,” he claimed.

Ghafoor alleged that the party had originally sought to have a no confidence motion behind closed doors over fears MPs would be too scared to vote in the current climate following the controversial transfer of power on February 7, 2012.

The MDP has maintained that the transfer of power that saw former President Nasheed resign from office following a mutiny by sections of the military and police was a “coup d’etat”.

“This is not a normal situation at present, the Supreme Court itself is part of this coup government,” Ghafoor claimed.

He said that while that the MDP had withdrawn no-confidence votes against Home Minister Mohamed Jameel and Defense Minister Mohamed Nazim on April 8 this year due to a lack of confidence in the vote, the party did not rule out rescheduling at a later date.

MDP MPs claimed upon withdrawing the no confidence motions earlier this month that the government-aligned DRP had agreed to vote in favour of the motions before reversing the decision at the eleventh hour.

MPs of the government-aligned Jumhooree Party (JP) and DRP had voted in favour of a secret ballot for no-confidence votes in December 2012.

Ghafoor claimed that with the recent defection of Speaker Shahid to the MDP and ongoing changes to the composition of parliament, the intention remained to try and remove the defence and home minsters as well as President Waheed.

“The [no confidence] strategy is not failed yet. Though the vote is not in our favour at the moment, things are always changing.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Foundations in place for new 10-storey police building

The foundations for a new ten-storey police building have been laid down as part of the celebrations marking the 80th anniversary of the Maldives Police Service.

Home Minister Dr Mohamed Jameel Ahmed laid part of the foundation for the new building, which will be used by police for administrative purposes, local media reported.

Speaking at the ceremony, Jameel said that police will be able to begin operating within the building in 18 month’s time.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Parliament could force journalists to reveal sources under new Privileges Act, warn police, MJA

The Maldives Journalist Association (MJA) and Maldives Police Service have both expressed concern over the recently passed Parliamentary Privileges Act.

The bill was forced into law last week after parliamentarians voted by a majority of 41 to overrule a previous presidential veto. The Majlis had originally approved the bill and sent it for ratification on December 27, 2012.

The bill was later returned by President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan Manik.

In a statement released on Sunday (March 10), the MJA claimed the legislation posed serious challenges for free and independent journalism.  The association therefore urged parliament to “immediately” change the extra-constitutional clauses that it said compromised the rights and freedom given to journalists by the constitution.

MJA contended that stipulations stated in Section 17(a) of the act – which concerns the summoning of parties to give witness to parliament or its committees – meant that journalists could be forced by the parliament to reveal their sources. The association contended that such a clause to provide sources would undermine Article 28 of the Maldives Constitution.

Section 17(a) of the Parliamentary Privileges Act states: “[Parliament or a Parliamentary Committee has the power to] summon anyone to parliament or one of its committees to give witness or to hand over any information which the parliament wish to seek.”

However, Article 28 of the constitution states – “Everyone has the right to freedom of the press, and other means of communication, including the right to espouse, disseminate and publish news, information, views and ideas. No person shall be compelled to disclose the source of any information that is espoused, disseminated or published by that person.”

The MJA, in its statement, claimed that such contradictions gave “reason for doubt” on the legality of the stated article of the Parliamentary Privileges Act.

It also claimed that certain clauses of the act were too vague and ambiguous, and could leave questions as to how a person can violate the privilege of the parliament open to interpretation.

The association claimed former President Mohamed Nasheed’s administration had previously tried to limit instances where journalists faced criminal prosecutions.

However, in its most recent statement, the MJA said it questioned whether Nasheed’s Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) had now changed its stand towards the issue.

The Parliamentary Privileges Act was passed with bipartisan support including that of the opposition MDP, which presently holds the largest number of elected officials in parliament.

Police concerns

Meanwhile, Commissioner of Police Abdulla Riyaz in an interview given to local media also expressed concern over the act, claiming the MPs are now “technically immune from the law”.

The commissioner of police stated that the act meant police would not be allowed to arrest a parliamentarian even if he was involved in severe corruption and bribery.

Section 3(b) of the Privileges Act states: “A member of parliament should not be arrested while he is on his way to execute his parliamentary duties or while he is inside the premises of the parliament or while he is on his way from the parliament. However, the section does not obstruct arresting a member of parliament who is found committing a crime and the due legal process involving the arrest.”

In the event that an MP has to be arrested under different circumstances, police must provide a court order obtained through an application by the Prosecutor General, according to the act.

Commissioner Riyaz claimed that the act gives enormous privileges to parliamentarians – privileges that are not even given to former presidents, which he said was “very concerning” and meant there would be no equality before the law.

“The [act] says that no person should indulge in an act that obstructs the work of the parliament. I really don’t comprehend what it is trying to say. I don’t think anybody would know beforehand what the parliament may decide to do. I don’t believe that is possible,” he said.

Riyaz further stated that he had requested Attorney General Azima Shukoor find a solution through the Supreme Court concerning the sections which obstructed the execution of police duty.

“The law even does not bar judges from being taken in for questioning. But according to this act, it seems to claim that MPs cannot be arrested at all,” he said.

He further criticised the bill for including the punishment of imprisonment for the offence of violating parliamentary privilege, stating that such criminalisation did not fit with modern democratic practices and standards.

According to the act, a person found guilty of committing offences deemed disrespectful towards parliament, or that interferes with the Majlis work, would face a fine or a jail sentence of between three to six months.

It further stipulates that members of the public found guilty of disruption while attending the People’s Majlis to view proceedings would either be fined between MVR 500 (US$32) or MVR 1000 (US$65) or sentenced to jail for three to six months.

Moreover, persons found guilty of providing false information to the parliament or any of its committees would be fined an amount between MVR 3,000 (US$195) and MVR 10,000 (US$650) or sentenced to three to six months in jail.

Parliament Counsel General Fathimath Filza was not responding at time of press.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Further protests as MDP calls for international community to be “mindful” of Maldives judiciary

The Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) has called for the international community to be “mindful” of the status of the Maldives judiciary, claiming it to be systematically flawed and biased.

The party’s sentiments were echoed in last night’s (February 16) protest as thousands of supporters of Nasheed once again took to the streets of Male’.

The former President has been inside the Indian High Commission since Wednesday afternoon after he sought refuge from a court warrant ordering police to present him before the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

Nasheed and his party have maintained that the charges – of illegally detaining Chief Criminal Court Judge Abdulla Mohamed prior to his controversial resignation on February 7, 2012 – are a politically-motivated attempt to prevent him from contesting presidential elections scheduled for later this year.

In contrast to Friday night’s protest, where 55 people were arrested following clashes with police, demonstrators last night took part in a “seated protest” in the intersection between Majeedhee Magu and Chaandhanee Magu.

Maldives Police Service (MPS) Spokesperson Sub Inspector Hassan Haneef told Minivan News today that while there had been no arrests made, a vehicle belonging to the Police Family and Child Protection Department was set on fire.

Police also allege that protesters set fire to a police barricade in the early hours of the morning.

However, MDP Spokesperson Hamid Abdul Ghafoor claimed the circumstances surrounding the barricade fire were suspicious.

“There had been reports that a police barricade was set on fire by protesters. However police tweeted about the fire two minutes before it actually happened,” Hamid claimed.

Minivan News observed around 4,000 demonstrators at last night’s gathering and witnessed multiple charges at the crowds by riot police.

MDP concern over Nasheed’s trial

A statement released by the MDP yesterday expressed concern regarding the trial of former President Mohamed Nasheed, adding that the status of the judiciary and rule of law in the country was not conducive to ensuring a fair trial for the former president.

The statement accuses judges within the Maldives judiciary as being “under qualified, of dubious moral character, corrupt with political bias, and unduly influenced by members of the former regime”.

“When international actors refer to rule of law and due process, it is only a presumption that rule of law exists in the Maldives,” Ghafoor stated.

“When calling for rule of law in the Maldives our international partners must bare in mind the current state of the judiciary, and its ability to conduct a fair trial.”

Speaking to Minivan News on Thursday, trial observer Stephen Cragg, who compiled a report on Nasheed’s trial, said it was clear the former president was concerned he would not receive a fair trial with the current judges on the case.

Cragg visited the Maldives last year on behalf of the Bar Human Rights Committee (BHRC) to observe the hearings of former President Nasheed’s trial.

“I think it is clear that Mr Nasheed is concerned that he will not get a fair trial if the case goes ahead with the current judges due to hear the case, and his action is likely to highlight those concerns internationally,” Cragg said.

The report compiled by Cragg notes: “BHRC is concerned that a primary motivation behind the present trial is a desire by those in power to exclude Mr Nasheed from standing in the 2013 elections, and notes international opinion that this would not be a positive outcome for the Maldives.”

In the statement, the MDP welcomed calls from India, United Kingdom, United States, the Commonwealth, United Nations and the European Union for a free, fair and inclusive presidential election in the Maldives.

On Friday, EU High Representative Catherine Ashton said she was following the latest developments “with concern” and “called on all parties to refrain from actions or statements which are liable to inflame the political climate in the country”.

“I underline the urgent need to resume dialogue between the parties, so as to ensure that the presidential elections set for September 2013 are credible, transparent, inclusive and fully representative of the wishes of all Maldivians, and so that the reforms identified by the Commission of National Inquiry in August 2012 can be rapidly implemented,” she said in a statement.

President of the Maldives, Mohamed Waheed Hassan Manik released his own statement yesterday condemning Nasheed’s actions on Wednesday.

“I am dismayed that the former President Nasheed sought refuge in the Indian High Commission in Male’ when he was summoned to the court. The court order which required the Police to arrest Nasheed and have him appear before the court was due to his refusal to attend court hearing. It had expired at 1600 hours on the 13 February 2013, and there is no reason for him to remain in the High Commission and to instigate street violence.

“The court order has nothing to do with my government. Upholding the rule of law means nobody is above the law. I would like to assure the people of Maldives that the law and order will be maintained,” the President’s statement reads.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

All murderers involved in 2012 murder cases found: police

The Maldives Police Service (MPS) have claimed that all murderers involved in cases last year have been found, local media reported.

In a promotional video uploaded on YouTube, police claimed that murderers who killed MP Dr Afrasheem Ali, lawyer Ahmed Najeeb, Police Lance Corporal Adam Haleem and Ayyube in Kudahuvadhoo in Dhaalu Atoll had all been found.

Local media reported that trials against some of the murder suspects are still ongoing in court, whilst others have been convicted and sentenced to death.

Cases related to theft increased last year and the seizure of drugs by MPS had reached a record high, police claimed.

Other figures from the video, as reported by local media, stated that 29 brothels have been closed down, while cases related to domestic violence against women and children sent for prosecution had increased and organised crime had been “controlled”.

In an effort to reduce crime, the Crime Prevention Department will now operate under the Public Affairs Department, local media reported.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

“We have been off the streets for some time – now we are back”: MDP

Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) supporters marched through Male’ on Tuesday (January 22) for the first time in several months to protest against the current coalition government.

The protest was the first large-scale march through the city since the Freedom of Assembly Bill was ratified by President Mohamed Waheed Hassan Manik earlier this month. The party claimed over three thousand attended.

MDP Spokesman Hamid Abdul Ghafoor told Minivan News that the party plans to hold more assemblies and protests in next coming months around Male’.

“The MDP have been off the streets some time, we had taken a break. Now we are back. We have too many options and ideas opening up and people need to know what’s going on,” Ghafoor added.

The demonstration took place the same day former President Mohamed Nasheed called on parliament to create an interim, caretaker administration following a week in which senior members of the defence and military gave evidence alleging the transfer of power on February 7 “had all the hallmarks of a coup d’etat.”

Minivan News observed the protest as it moved down through Majeedhee Magu at around 5:00pm on Tuesday evening.

Despite the large turnout of protesters and disruption caused to traffic, Minivan News witnessed only four police officers observing the march from down a side street off Majeedhee Magu.

Asked as to why police presence had been limited during the protest, Maldives Police Service (MPS) Spokesman Hassan Haneef said police had been “observing the protest”.

“Under the Freedom of Assembly Bill there are guidelines for protests. We made no arrests and I do not see why there should be a problem if there is no trouble caused,” Haneef added.

Minivan News witnessed only one incident of confrontation when a protester threw a handful of Maldivian rufiya notes at the face of a police officer – who did not react.

As protesters walked passed two police stations on Ameene Magu they began to chant “Baghee” to officers watching from outside.

“When you compare to how the police have reacted to us in the past, it was very different today. I still do not believe that the whole of police and Maldivian National Defence Force were involved in the coup,” Ghafoor said yesterday.

“In the past there is only trouble from police when we move into areas where they get nervous. They do not confront us as long as we keep away from those areas,” he added.

President’s Office Spokesperson Masood Imad and Police Commissioner Abdulla Riyaz were not responding to calls from Minivan News at time of press.

Usfasgandu handover

The protest took place a day after Male’ City Council (MCC) Mayor ‘Maizan’ Ali Manik appealed to High Court to suspend a Civil Court ruling ordering it to hand over the MDP protest site – Usfasgandu – to the Ministry of Housing and Infrastructure.

“The government want the MDP to go onto the streets, that way they can say there is no stability in the country and preventearlyelections from being held,” Manik alleged to Minivan News on Monday.

Responding to the Mayor’s allegations, President’s Office Spokesperson Masood Imad claimed the mayor needs to be more “Male’ mayor” than “MDP mayor”.

“Who is to say the MDP will start protesting on the streets if Usfasgandu is handed over? Why do some people think the [MDP] always protest?

“Contrary to what Mayor Manik thinks, I don’t think they go around making protests, I think the MDP are good guys,” Imad said.

Freedom of Assembly

The recently ratified Freedom of Assembly Bill imposes a number of restrictions on protesting from both protesters and police alike.

Among the key features of the Freedom of Assembly bill is the outlawing of demonstrations outside private residences and government buildings, limitations on media covering protests not accredited with the state and defining “gatherings” as a group of more than a single person.

One of the main stated objectives of the legislation is to try and minimise restrictions on peaceful gatherings, which it claims remain a fundamental right.

Under the legislation, demonstrations will be outlawed within a certain distance of the residences of the president and vice president, tourist resorts, harbours utilized for economic purposes, airports, the President’s Office, the courts of law, the Parliament, mosques, schools, hospitals and buildings housing diplomatic missions.

Earlier this month Ghafoor told Minivan News that the MDP stood against the principles of the Freedom of Assembly Bill, alleging its ratification is a response to the ‘Ingilaab’ proposed by former President Mohamed Nasheed last month.

Speaking at yesterday’s protest, Ghafoor said that the MDP had obtained permission from Male’ City Council to protest. MCC Mayor ‘Maizan’ Ali Manik also took part in the protest.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Party switching adding to lack of public confidence in parliament: Transparency Maldives

Political figures and civil society organisations have expressed concern at a perceived accountability failure within the Maldives’ democratic system, which they allege allows MPs to switch freely between rival parties for personal gain.

Local NGO Transparency Maldives claimed the lack of mechanisms for investigating the alleged use of incentives to encourage MPs to transfer to other parties had done very little to “allay fears” among the general public of parliament being a corrupt institution.

Ibrahim Shareef, Deputy Leader of the government-aligned Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP), claimed while MPs were not necessarily having their allegiance bought by rival parties, there was “always a temptation” for elected officials to transfer to a party expected to come to power. He claimed such activities were likely a factor in growing public disillusionment with democracy.

The issue arose after Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) MP Ilham Ahmed was reported in local media as stating this his allegiance was “not for sale”, despite his “love and admiration” for Jumhooree Party (JP) Leader Gasim Ibrahim.

“Gasim is someone whom I love very much. He is a very good friend of mine since Television Maldives and through my teenage years. But loving or being close to someone is not reason to change parties,” Haveeru reported Ilham as saing.

While aware of MP Ilham’s comments, JP Spokesperson Moosa Rameez maintained it was against the values of the party to offer incentives to encourage MPs to join up.

“We have our doors always open for people who believe in our policies to join us. There have been no attempts made to bring Ilham to JP ,” he told Minivan News.

The JP is a coalition partner of the PPM within the government of President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan Manik.

Corruption fears

Transparency Maldives Project Director Aiman Rasheed maintained that a lack of investigative mechanisms and regulations within the Majlis to outline rules for MPs wishing to switch political parties had helped to further erode public trust in elected officials.

Rasheed pointed to a report published by Transparency International last year concluding that 90 percent of a surveyed group of Maldivians believed that the People’s Majlis was the most corrupt of the country’s institutions.

The “Daily Lives and Corruption: Public Opinion in Maldives” report surveyed 1001 people in the Maldives between April 23 and April 29 of 2011 to capture public perception of corruption in the country.

Rasheed maintained that reports and allegations of MPs switching to other political parties for incentives was one of a number of factors that had led to dwindling trust in the country’s parliament.

“The problem is that all these claims [of MPs switching parties or being bought] remain allegations. No one is doing any investigation into these claims and these is no interest in doing so,” he claimed.

“What this serves to do is erode trust in parliament, which our Public Opinion in Maldives report found to be seen as the most corrupt national institution. Parliament is not doing anything to allay these fears and it is really hard to verify such allegations.”

Rasheed claimed that Transparency Maldives was concerned that parliament was failing to do its duty by providing details of MPs’ interests and finances to the public.

He stressed that although efforts were taken to try and make an MPs assets and interests publicly available, parliamentarians themselves failed to agree on procedure for doing this.

Party switch

Ahead of presidential elections scheduled for later this year, Shareef warned there was a “real danger” MPs would switch to rival parties to protect their political careers, regardless of ideology or political allegiance.

“The Maldives is in a transition state to a democracy, however the situation has been very volatile in the past five to six years,“ he claimed.

Shareef claimed a lack of understanding within the country about the workings of a democratic system had also led to difficulties following a switch from autocracy after general elections were held in 2008.

“Democracy is a word we all talk about.  But the Maldives is a mostly youthful nation that chose to believe that democracy would bring solutions to all our problems. However, over the last few year that had been growing disillusionment with [former President] Mohamed Nasheed,” he claimed.

Shareef alleged that politicians on both sides of the country’s political divide sought to be in power by making unrealistic promises spread through what he believed was mostly privately-owned, politically biased media services.

“The media is being controlled and used as a tool to mislead [island] communities about MPs. There is always a temptation for MPs to go where the wind blows strongest,” he claimed.

“If it looks like a party might be coming to power, many MPs without a strong ideology might choose to switch to them to ensure they can keep their well-paid political positions.”

Shareef claimed that rather than earning condemnation from constituents for switching their political allegiance, MPs would at times decide to swing towards parties that would provide them with the greatest benefit in line with voter preference in their communities.

“Royalist stance”

As well as criticising the ideology of the opposition MDP, Shareef also hit out at coalition partner the PPM, which he accused of favouring a “royalist stance” towards leadership in the country.

The PPM was formed back in 2011 after a split between supporters of current DRP leader Ahmed Thasmeen Ali and those of his predecessor and former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom.

Gayoom had previously been the autocratic ruler of the country for 30 years from 1978 to 2008, when he was defeated in the country’s first democratic elections by former President Mohamed Nasheed.

Shareef accused the PPM of holding a deeply conservative ideology in favour of what he labelled a constitutional monarchy. He claimed such an ideology was focused on maintaining the former President’s legacy through his immediate heirs.

“They represent a very deeply conservative ideology of invoking a golden age of 30 years [of autocratic rule],” he said. “If you carefully observe, the top ladder of the PPM represent a legacy of Gayoom that will be maintained though his children.”

Shareef contended that traditionally, the president of the Maldives seemed as far away and distant to the everyday lives of the Maldivian people as the president of the US.

“Until recently, people saw the president as someone with divine authority to rule the country from Male’,” he said. Shareef claimed that efforts to change would be difficult.

When contacted by Minivan News today, PPM MP and Parliamentary Group Leader Abdulla Yameen said the party was busy with its congress and internal elections to decide on its key positions ahead of presidential elections later this year. He declined to comment on the issue.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)