Tag: Politics

Comment: Adhaalath out of sight, out of mind?

The Adhaalath party has blown the popsicle stand, having declared defeat in its efforts to ‘reform’ the sinful government led by President Nasheed.

In the days leading up to its decision to leave the coalition, Adhaalath provided the public with what it considers a damning indictment of MDP-facilitated transgressions: invited Jews to preach Christianity in the Maldives; sent young Maldivians to a Christian seminary otherwise known as Christ College, Oxford University; and encouraged Maldivians to commit the haraam act of gambling by publicising the US Green Card Lottery.

Adhaalath’s departure from the ruling coalition, and the preceding days it spent in the headlines, provoked different reactions among different segments of society.

For some, the party and its departure are inconsequential. They have no political power, anyway. A substantial number of social media pundits think Adhaalath should be wholly exempt from mainstream media coverage. There are two primary reasons offered as support for this position: Adhaalath is too stupid to be worthy of attention or Adhaalath is too good (read too Islamic) to criticise. The inevitable conspiracy theorists, meanwhile, see media coverage of Adhaalath as evidence of a covert operation run (probably by Mossad) to discredit Islam in the Maldives.

Quite apart from the fact that no right-minded journalist would turn down the opportunity to cover displays of such gargantuan stupidity by politicians, there are many reasons for the public watchdog to keep a wary eye on this party.

A party of little consequence?

It is a mistake to assume that Adhaalath has no political power because it has few bodies in state institutions. Power is not exercised simply by those in government; and governing is not done merely by elected politicians. The power Adhaalath has is greater than the sum of its political seats – it governs by dictating faith and thus penetrates further into people’s lives than a democratic government can.

Consider this: the Constitution requires that every Maldivian citizen be a Muslim. Automatically, that puts every citizen within the legitimate reach of any authority that claims to know Islam best. It is this power to govern the conduct of every citizen through a supposedly privileged knowledge of ‘true Islam’ that makes parties like Adhaalath important. It is a power that is outside the boundaries of legislation and government policy, yet manages to carry the most legitimacy among the people.

Over the last few years, Adhaalath has positioned itself as The Religious Party. Given the emphasis that Islam places on truth and honesty, it is the most politically advantageous position that any political party can occupy in the Maldives today. People are daily disillusioned by reports of corruption at every level of government, and within communities. Two years of intensely partisan politics have created strife within previously harmonious communities. The decentralisation project is increasingly revealing itself to be deeply flawed with untrained local councillors and people clashing on a regular basis. The promise of ‘equal justice for all’ remains not just unfulfilled but is being intentionally ignored, there being neither political will nor courage to change the status quo.

Let there be truth

In uncertain times, people flock to those who can shepherd them towards certainty. Adhaalath’s position as ‘the only honest party’ is proving attractive to many disillusioned voters. The septuagenarian Gayoom’s recent political acrobatics was an added bonus for Adhaalath as disgruntled voters, unsure of which letter of the alphabet to choose from, signed up for the simplicity and straightforwardness of ‘Adhaalath.’

Gayoom’s ploy to stem the number of people leaving him by aligning himself with Adhaalath’s version of Islam backfired somewhat. For many Maldivians who regarded the right path to Islam as intertwined with the road leading to Gayoom’s favour, his endorsement of Adhaalath provided a way of leaving the increasingly erratic Zaeem without betraying their religious loyalties. It is a little wonder that Adhaalath boasted a bump in membership numbers in recent weeks.

For the minority who have been exposed to alternative ways of thinking, Adhaalath’s policies may appear formulated in an intellectual vacuum, and no doubt provides much cause for levity. For the majority, however, Adhaalath speaks the truth. It is a claim Adhaalath never hesitates to reiterate, invariably shoring it up with references to the Qur’an.

The power of such truth claims is evident in the religious right’s ability to convince the population of an entire island that they were about to be infiltrated by a group of Jews pretending to be philanthropic farmers, whose real aim was not the local cabbage patch but preaching Christianity. It would be a mistake to underestimate the power of any group capable of convincing a population that such a scenario is not just probable but imminent.

The known unknowns

The Maldivian people, like most people across the world, have been put through an ideological and political wringer in the last decade. Unlike most other countries going through the chaos of transition, however, a majority of the Maldivian population has been vastly shielded from the intense debates surrounding the enormous changes in the world’s political, economic and ideological landscapes.

Thirty years in which ignorance was used as a tool of governance would have that affect. The long cultural and educational stagnation has created a society in which a majority of people are incapable of critically engaging with the world around them. The democracy that flourishes in such a society cannot help but be different from a democracy that takes shape in a society more widely exposed to diverse views and opinions.

In the absence of alternative views, on what comparative basis can the majority question the policies Adhaalath advocates? After all, the leaders of Adhaalath can recite the Qur’an, often from memory, and always have handy a suitable interpretation of Hadith whatever the situation. When they have all the answers, what is there to question?

Among a population that is being directed to spend their lives preparing for afterlife, there is no authority greater than the one that offers them a straight path to heaven. Adhaalath has positioned itself to be just that.

For those who advise against scrutiny of Adhaalath – if not now, then when? After the first person is hanged for blasphemy? After the first woman is stoned? After all civil liberties have been eroded in the name of Islam?

Refusing Adhaalath the ‘oxygen of publicity’ is not going to wane its influence. With the pulpits theirs for the taking, Adhaalath does not need the mainstream media for its message. Ignoring Adhaalath, on the other hand, will allow it to quietly perpetuate its ideology among people until every follower will happily to make a detour to the ballot box en route to heaven.

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)

Women leading youth brain drain due to “stifling environment”

“There is a lot of brain drain here, that’s part of why I came back. I didn’t want to be a brain drainer. I wanted to fix it.”

Halifa* is a 25 year-old Maldivian woman, educated and living abroad, who returned to work in the Maldives for a one year contract in a highly specialised professional field.

For many young people, Halifa says, Maldivian culture is an obstacle to growth and employment.

“Many youth wish they weren’t even Maldivian, they don’t know why they had to get stuck here,” she says. “When I talk to one of my friends, she says she wants to get out and come back when it’s better. That attitude is actually quite common.”

The Maldives has an unemployment rate of 32 percent, with women accounting for 24 percent overall. Young people comprise 40 percent of the population of the capital Male’. Of these youth, few females hold diplomas and many are unemployed.

“Lots of girls quit school to get married, and before long they’re having kids and trying to raise a family aged 19 or 20,” Halifa says.

For those who do look for jobs, the options are few.

“Most bosses hire for looks,” says Halifa. “Girls are often hit on by bosses, and some give in. Maybe they think they can handle it if it will improve their CV. But after the relationship, most girls leave the job and maybe take up the burqa. The experience may be so bad that they won’t look for another job.”

Growing religious fundamentalism is causing ripples of concern over female employment – although the Constitution allows for equal rights, few stand up for them. Instead, women increasingly accept a “culture of timidity and submissiveness,” in the words of another Maldivian woman, who is pursuing her doctorate.

It is a significant time for the strengthening of Maldivian democracy following the introduction of multi-party elections and many new freedoms. But it seems that women are both dissuaded from and reluctant to participate in the job sector. Frustrated by social, political and religious obstacles, youth are looking to apply themselves elsewhere. Is the Maldives facing a female brain drain?

“The ultimate goal is to raise an educated housewife”

A 2007 UNICEF report found that girls were almost 10 percent more likely to pass from primary to secondary schooling than boys, and repeated primary school less often. But sources say fewer girls are fulfilling their potential.

A government official who spoke to Minivan News said that many women lose their motivation to pursue higher education at grade 11, choosing marriage instead. The official said things are changing, but opportunities remain scarce for both genders.

“I think what women lack really is higher education, and men as well. If we want to move ahead, we need to focus on providing higher education,” she says.

Cost and accessibility contribute to the low achievement rates. Higher education is expensive by Maldivian standards, and the wait for scholarships is demoralising, says Halifa. Students who study abroad are often from wealthy families, and therefore not selected for their intelligence or ambition.

Halifa adds that Maldivian culture does not justify the effort of getting a degree: “Education is valuable in the Maldives, everyone wants their kids to have degrees. But then what do they do? They still expect them to be at home.”

According to an Asian Development Bank (ADB) report dated 2007, Maldivian cultural standards make it difficult for girls to pursue professional degrees.

“Cultural expectations regarding young women living away from home impact upon the numbers of female students studying abroad and hence female attainment of tertiary qualifications. From 1995 to 2000 a total of 876 students were awarded government scholarships to study abroad, 42% of which went to girls. From 2001 to 2005, 39% of undergraduate scholarships went to girls, 38% of post-graduate scholarships and 22% of doctorate scholarships.”

The Maldivian parliament has 77 members, only five of whom are female. MP for the ruling Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP), Eva Abdulla, said the lack of higher education affects a woman’s chances in the job sector.

“It is difficult for women to get the education necessary to compete with men of the same age for the same job. Statistics show that women are receiving less education than men after tenth grade, whereas up until secondary school they are on par.”

Abdul said the pressure to stay home and become a mother was significant. She also acknowledged that a woman’s path to employment is unclear.

“Equality in the work force and equal opportunities for women won’t happen naturally if we just improve education. We need to make some real changes to show an improvement in the ratio of men to women in the work force,” she said.

In some cases, however, employers see education as a threat instead of an asset. Halifa’s boss allegedly told her she was lucky to be hired with a degree. Since the boss only held a diploma, she preferred hiring employees whose qualifications did not jeopardise her own.

“Cover up and wear the burqa”

Halifa says her boss made unflattering assumptions about her personal life since she was over 20 and unmarried.

“I was guilty before I even knew I was being judged,” she says.

There is “not one single resource” for women who feel they are receiving unfair treatment at work, said Abdulla. “I don’t know if we have even made it comfortable for women to talk to each other here.”

Halifa adds that complaints of sexual harassment only provoke criticism of her religious practice: “They just tell me to cover up more and wear the burqa,” she says.

Although Maldivian law and society allow for equal rights between genders, speaking out is considered brash and unfeminine, and the cultural mindset of wearing the burqa means more girls are being married young without finishing their education. One woman called this shift in behavior “brain wastage: a deliberate refusal to apply the brains that one has – and this is the biggest problem that Maldivian women face today.”

Behind the pack

“Gender equality is an area in which the Maldives is lagging behind most countries in achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs),” UNDP advisor Ferdinand von Habsburg-Lothringen observed at the Democracy Day ceremony earlier this month. “Democracy is dependent on not just 50 percent of the people. With only half of the eligible work force participating, growth will not flourish in the Maldives.”

According to Abdulla, women want to work but cannot find the domestic support necessary for them to work outside the home.

“I have not met many who say they would rather stay home,” she said. “But the pressure of managing a career and a home is serious. Women have two jobs: one paid, one unpaid.”

The stress on women is detrimental to economic growth.

ADB reports that almost half of Maldivian households are headed by women, while less than four percent of men contribute to household tasks. Approximately 25 percent of women-headed households depend on income from a husband who works away from home, and one sixth are run by widows or divorcees.

“Divorced women and their children are particularly economically vulnerable and [have] limited choices to improve their situation apart from remarrying: Maldivian women have on average four marriages by the time they reach 50 years of age,” states the report.

In 2007, ADB found that female-headed households accounted for 47 percent of the population, one of the highest rates worldwide. Only 21 percent of these households were economically active.

A government official familiar with the issue said “the middle market is the primary area of employment for women”, with few women advancing to the top. She added that she is often the only woman at a business meeting.

Most sources agreed that the recent rise in religious fundamentalism could have a long-term effect on women’s employment prospects.

In 2009, opposition Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) MP Rozaina Adam introduced the Soft Loans Provision for Women to enable women to borrow small amounts of money and set up small businesses from home. She said the bill would particularly benefit island women who have fewer employment options.

The bill was stopped when it reached the Islamic Ministry, which declared interest haram.

“This is ridiculous, because our banks operate with interest,” Adam said. “But when interest involves women the Ministry calls it haram. And it’s only a tiny amount of interest, about six percent maximum.”

Adam said the loans provided by the bill would range from Rf5,000 to Rf300,000.

“Unless we do something about the growing religious fundamentalism in the Maldives, women will only stay at home and breed children in the coming years. That is not constructive for a growing country and economy. It would be a major economic setback,” said Adam.

“We are a country in transition so what happens during this time defines what happens next.”

Women face many challenges to employment: complicated social expectations, unclear motives for education, an increasingly strict Islamic code, and scrutinising work environments. If current social trends continue, there will be little room and few incentives for the next generation to contribute to the country’s growth.

“Educated Maldivians find themselves intellectually stifled in the current climate, especially with the astonishing gains that ultra-religious conservatives have made in Maldivian society in the last decade,” observed one source.

At this year’s 55th session of the Commission on the Status of Women, Abdulla said gender stereotyping and violence “threaten[ed] to erode our gains and erect obstacles to future progress.” She warned that unless key institutions such as Parliament include more women in their decision-making processes, “policies will continue to lack the multifaceted approaches required to address the complex social, political and economic needs of our country.”

Recent initiatives such as the Domestic Violence Bill and the National University Act are positive steps. But Abdulla said evidence suggests more families are removing girls from education systems and keeping them in the domestic circuit. “We believe that religious extremism that shapes negative attitudes towards women and girls forms the genesis of this devolution towards female education and empowerment,” Abdulla said at the session.

One woman warned that if religious and social trends continue, “in ten years women would be lucky to leave the house, let alone the country.”

Although most sources agreed that religious fundamentalism challenges the thinking, working woman, some say it is not actively preventing women from going to work or improving their lot.

Halifa is optimistic about her generation, but said success depends on key changes. “I think when our generation is in charge they will be people who have gotten out, who have seen other cultures, who are more familiar with the power of women. The religious guys are still an issue for development,” she says.

One government source added that compared to Mexicans, Maldivians do not have a strong urge to cross a border.

Adam cautioned that the Maldives should be aware of the outside world’s appeal to youth. “If we can’t offer challenging jobs and salaries that are competitive with what other countries are offering, we have a hard time keeping our educated youth involved at home,” she said.

Abdulla says she believes that there would be significant opportunities for youth in the government and private sectors in the next five years, but felt that more needed to be done to improve the working environment.

“Equality in the work force and equal opportunities for women won’t happen naturally if we just improve education,” she said. “We need to make some real changes to show an improvement in the ratio of men to women in the work force.”

*Name changed according to request

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Q&A: UN Ambassador Abdul Ghafoor Mohamed

Abdul Ghafoor Mohamed is the Maldives Ambassador to the UN and was defacto non-resident Ambassador to the US, prior to the recent appointment of Ahmed Sareer to the position. He speaks to Minivan News about the Maldives-US relationship, climate politics and the challenges facing the country with the introduction of new interpretations of religion.

JJ Robinson: Why do you think countries such as the US and UK are interested in the Maldives considering it is such a small and remote nation?

Abdul Ghafoor Mohamed: Right now small states make up a substantial part of the international community and they have a loud voice. They not willing to sit back and take what comes, they are making their presence known and making waves, trying to assert their rights as they become more confident.

As they become more experienced in international affairs, they are becoming a much bigger presence than before. Sometimes small states are also able to act in ways larger, more powerful states are unable – other countries are much more wary of positions taken by larger states.

Small states have the opportunity to speak more openly and frankly on issues in an objective manner. I think when our views are consistent, eventually the international community does recognise that here is a country that does its homework and tries to be responsible within the resource constraints it has.

In particular the Maldives has undergone tremendous changes in the last few years; changes that present a symbol of hope for many other countries. The Maldives is a small island Muslim country, with relations with the Commonwealth and a wide range of membership which helps it have access to a large pool of friends, and the views of countries. It is also a founding member of SAARC, and although the Maldives and Bhutan are the smallest SAARC states, both played an important role in shaping its direction, especially this year as we take up the chairmanship.

Here’s a country that has had no political parties in its entire history. It went from an autocratic monarchy to an autocratic presidency. Although we moved from a sultanate, it was in some ways a change in name rather than a change in psyche, for the people and those in government.

Consequently it was a very difficult change to multiparty democracy, with new novel concepts such as independent institutions, and a President more constrained than the heads of governments we are used to having.

Yet despite the turmoil, I think the Maldives has showed that through dialogue and robust engagement, you can change a government through the ballot box. It is a credit to both the former President and the serving President that they were able to manage the transition so smoothly, given the potential for disruption.

JJ: Do you hold to the view that the Maldives is in some ways two years ahead of the current turmoil in the Middle East, and could perhaps set an example for some of these countries?

AGM: Yes and no. Yes in the sense that there are certain similarities: it was the ordinary people, and not just the poor and uncared for. It was the educated middle class and youth who took the lead in bringing the changes to the Maldives. And they demanded their rights on the streets.

But the Middle East is large and the countries complex, and a lot more people have vested interests in what happens there. We should note the success of the Maldives, in part because of the support and encouragement the international community gave to it. I’m not saying they interfered, but they certainly encouraged a democratic transition. They were engaged with both the government and the opposition, and keen to ensure the unrest did not become too costly, as a country that is dependent so much on tourism – peace and stability are important to the Maldives.

There are certainly things that can be learned from the Maldives’ experience. One of the things is the fast pace at which we moved, which made it very difficult to complete the institutions in time. Most people need time to adjust to the new thinking and new concepts.

In the Maldives we are lucky to have a homogenous religion and race, whereas in many Middle Eastern countries you have tribes and different religious and racial backgrounds. For them to come together to make sure a new political framework protects all the interests of this people may by more challenging than in the Maldives.

JJ: Since the Maldives joined the UN Human Rights Council, have you observed a difference in the way in which the Maldives is regarded and its diplomatic position?

AGM: The Maldives has always been fairly well received. We have good standing as a country run quite stably and with good development. Whatever problems we have had we have kept to ourselves.

The fact that we moved in 30-40 years from one of the least developed 16 countries to being a graduated non-LDC (least developed country) by end of first decade of the 21st century, means not only we but the last government achieved some things quite well.

The new government has taken a much more active position and is willing to be engaged with the international community even on issues of controversy, speaking its mind quite frankly.

This is the first time ever the Maldives is holding a position of this nature in the international arena. We have never been a member of a UN institution. We came in with a lot of good will because of our established record of engagement and a record of openness and transparency. We are one of the few countries which has a standing invitation to special rapporteurs.

We are also one of the few small countries – and a Muslim country – with a permanent presence in Geneva. As there are often misunderstandings about human rights instruments and values by the West and Muslim countries, many saw us, and we certainly promote ourselves, as a country that can provide a bridge for these views, as well as provide a voice for smaller states on the Council.

JJ: A US State Department cable leaked by Wikileaks documents your meeting with the State Department in February 2010. During the meeting, Assistant Secretary of State Robert Blake asks if the Maldives required “quiet US assistance” to take up the Human Rights Council position. Was that offer taken up, and what was the extent of US support for the Maldives in entering the Human Rights Council?

AGM: As a small country we didn’t have resources to run an election campaign in the way larger countries can run. Our record is of making ourselves heard and meeting as many ambassadors as possible, letter writing campaigns, and using our embassies in other parts of the world. Ministers also made contact at any international meetings.

Our campaign went on at a persistent and consistent level that didn’t cost us, because we didn’t have any money. We were obviously happy with the support that anyone extended to us, be it the US, UK or Canada. Most Western countries saw us as a moderate country that could play a constructive role.

While we appreciated the offer of help we were very keen to ensure than nobody viewed the Maldives as being sponsored. It was a conscious decision by the government because we felt we had a constructive role to play. We got 185 votes – the maximum number we could get.

JJ: The Maldives was running against Iran?

AGM: We were not running against Iran at the later stage, as they graciously withdrew and made way for the Maldives to run the race uncontested. We appreciated that, because while we were trying to win we didn’t want anyone to feel we were running against a particular country. We felt we had a strong case in running for the election in 2010, because this was the first time the Maldives had run for a position on a UN body.

There are very few small nations in Geneva who can be in the council. We had a history of positive engagement, and we wanted to use our membership in the council to improve the human rights situation at home as well.

Locally, not everyone agrees with some of the concepts. Either they are misunderstood, or seen as threatening. Our membership on the Human Rights Council also makes it easier for us to lobby the domestic community.

JJ: Later in the leaked document, Special Envoy to facilitate the closing of the Guantanamo Bay detention camp offered the Maldives US$85,000 for the resettlement of a Guantanamo detainee.

AGM: This was at an informal level to see the possibility. With regard to the money offered to the government of the Maldives, this was to help the person settle in the Maldives, and for his upkeep. This was not prize money. Obviously housing a person in the Maldives, giving him a place to stay, trying to find him an employment opportunity – that is a cost, and obviously one the Maldives should not have to pay as we are doing a favour for the US.

JJ: What ultimately happened? Did the Maldives take the US up on that offer?

AGM: The matter became quite a stir in the country, and it later died down. To my knowledge there was been no transfer of prisoners from Guantanamo to the Maldives.

JJ: You also discussed the possibility of the US putting down US$50 million in climate change assistance, which the UK’s Guardian newspaper interpreted as in return for taking a particular position at the Copenhagen climate summit.

AGM: The Maldives was one of the few small countries that supported the Copenhagen Accord, because we felt that accepting Copenhagen was more helpful than not accepting it.

We also felt that if more states came on board, the likelihood that the commitments that were given would become reality much quicker. The government did try to encourage other small states to come on board. It was a catch 22 situation – some small countries wanted to wait and see commitments become reality.

The US felt that unless there were enough people committed to the Copenhagen Accord, it would be difficult to make money available. They have to sell the commitments to their people and Congress as well.

I remember the conversation. I said that if the US were to be more forthcoming with their commitments and put the money in, it may actually encourage small states to come on more quickly, because they would see there was value in taking on the Copenhagen Accord. It wasn’t just the Maldives – I was keen to see commitments available for small states, which would mean other small states would also benefit.

Even before my meeting with the State Department the President had written to many heads of state to try and encourage them to come on board. The Maldives sent its letter of acceptance of the accord immediately after the meeting.

Unfortunately there were allegations, but I can certainly say no money was exchanged for votes.

JJ: Did the US$50 million in climate assistance ever materialise?

AGM: I believe are a number of climate-related projects with which the US is now helping.

JJ: Do you think the Maldives’ international human rights agenda at times conflicts not only with the understanding of human rights here, but also the constitution?

AGM: I wouldn’t say conflicts. But I think there are various interpretations between those who are liberal and conservative in their interpretations. But it would be wrong to say a conflict as such. I think through dialogue and discussion we can find a common ground where human rights are universal.

JJ: This topic came up during your discussion with the US State Department – you mentioned the need for greater access in the Maldives to “Western liberal education” to counter some of the extremist views coming back from places such as Pakistan.

AGM: Again, different people interpreted the comment differently. Some people interpret it as though I was trying to stop Maldivian students from traveling to places like Egypt to study. I was not – the point I was making was that many of the educational opportunities we get are in the Middle East, and sometimes for free – especially in Pakistan, where the madrassas offer free education.

Given the limited resources many parents have, it is very appealing to send children, especially sons, to these places that offer free education – in religion. The Maldives has traditionally been a very religious country. There is a love of religion and a very strong identity held about being Muslim.

When they have an opportunity for free education in Islam, many parents send their children. We have also relied on scholarships from other countries to educate children in higher studies. The more we receive these from Western countries, the more children will come back and have an influence on society. Many leading public figures have been educated abroad.

The US was one of the prime sponsors of Maldivians some time back in the 80s – we had 50 plus students in the American University of Beirut in Lebanon. Some of the best and brightest of that generation were educated in Beirut.

So we are trying to encourage especially the US to grant more scholarships for Maldivian students. It is an expensive place to study, especially for undergraduates. We felt quite keenly the loss of opportunities in Beirut. We looked to revive such opportunities.

JJ: People talk here about views from overseas being brought back to the Maldives. To what extent do you think that the Arab or Saudi interpretations of religion have been brought to the Maldives in this way, and to what extent have they supplanted traditional Maldivian interpretations of Islam?

AGM: This is my own very personal opinion: our earliest scholars studied at Azhar University in Egypt, and they were highly regarded [back in the Maldives]. There is a strong connection between religion taught in Azhar university, and religion practiced in the Maldives.

The one book that taught religion to a generation of Maldivians was a religious book by Mohamed Jameel, the father of the former Foreign Minister Fathulla Jameel. He was known as the teacher of a generation in terms of educating the public in religion.

That was the basis. These days, with the advent of modern communications and transport, we have many people coming from many schools. Even in the Middle East you have many ways of teaching and practicing religion, from the Gulf states to the more conservative Saudi Arabia. When they come back, they bring their own views of Islam, and how they have been taught.

In some ways this is unfortunate in a society that has had a very strong accord with religion. People are coming back with different religious experiences, and when they try to practice it here it sows discord. We have always seen religion as a force that bound the people of Maldives together as one, we are now seeing it as a source of discord. And that is a pity.

We hope that rather than stick to dogmatic views, we will be able to stick to a point of view that brings us together as one. The more you study the more you become aware of the complexities – whereas when you have only the basics, you can accept unquestioningly. Now there are questions being asked – people are more willing to question religious and political leaders.

There is also the internet. But it takes a strong intellect and a very good sense of right and wrong to determine sense from nonsense on the internet.

JJ: With more people talking about this, questions being asked and different interpretations coming forward, does this not conflict with what you said earlier about the Maldives being a homogenous society with one interpretation of religion binding it together?

AGM: I think this is part of progress and development. People are becoming more open to new ways of thinking and alternative view points. I think it is becoming more mature. Even if we were to hold different views on religion, we are learning to disagree without being disagreeable.

JJ: What has been the impact of the Maldives’ graduation from the UN’s definition of a least developed country to a middle income country? Has this affected countries’ willingness to engage with the Maldives as a development partner? Does this risk the Maldives being cut off from support?

AGM: I don’t think we will be cut off. This a point we have with the international community. Although we graduated in 2011, this was not a cause for celebration because it meant we had more challenges. Many of the challenges we faced before we will continue to face as a developing island nation: our small resource base, our transport costs, our dependence on one or two resources, and vulnerability to what happens outside in tourism and fishing – we have little control over the world market.

We have a fairly small economy and we do not have the economies of scale. One of the things the donor countries promised was a smooth transition. The Maldives’ efforts during the LDC conference meant we were able to adopt a resolution on transition, which would continue to provide certain benefits to a country for three years, as well as call on donor countries to continue assisting with the transition.

The worst message the international community could give to other potential countries graduating would be to see us revert to an LDC. There should not be a fear of slipping back. There is a very ambitious document that came out in the LDC conference in Turkey, which pledged to graduate 10-12 countries in the next 10 year period. It is important that these countries welcome rather than fear graduation.

There should be certain benefits we receive after graduating and showing that we are on the right path, and a country worth investing in. Certainly we have challenges, but we also have opportunities, and become exploit to our benefit, and show we are successful, be our partner in development.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Supreme Court upholds High Court’s ruling to allow civil servants to take part in political activities.

The Supreme Court has today ruled that article 53 of the Civil Service Act is inconsistent with article 30[a] of the constitution, and has supported the High Court ruling invalidating the article 53 of the Civil Service Act.

The case was appealed by the Attorney General at the Supreme Court, after the High Court determined that the article 53 of the Civil Service Act was inconsistent with article 30[a] of the constitution.

Article 53 of the Civil Service Act states that Civil Servants cannot participate in any political activities while article 30[a] of the constitution states that it is a right of every citizen to take part in political activities.

The Supreme Court’s verdict read that section 77[a] to [d] of the Civil Service Act that defines political activities, which has mentioned every single activity that would come to a person’s mind when they think of political activities, and that article 77[a] to [d] was defined as definitely inconsistent with the constitution’s article 30[a].

Local media reported that the case was lodged with  the High Court by a former civil servant who worked at the Youth Ministry named Mohamed Haanim, who was dismissed from his position after he took part in an opposition Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) rally.

The case was logged to the Supreme Court on March 2009 and the case reached to a conclusion yesterday.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Why is Gayoom plunging back into active politics, asks the Eurasia Review

Former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom’s decision to create a new political party should come as now surprise to anyone who has been watching developments in the Maldives, writes S. Chandrasekharan for the Eurasia Review.

“Gayoom had been openly accusing the DRP leadership since March this year of acting ‘dictatorially’ and violating the party charter. Thus Gayoom was leaving a party that was created by him on July 21, 2005 when the country was moving towards a multi party democracy and ditching the current leader of the party Thasmeen Ali – a person chosen by him personally. “When Thasmeen took over, Gayoom was made the “honorary leader” ( Zaeem ) of the DRP. The understanding was that he would for all practical purposes give up politics and have a role like that of a senior adviser.

It now transpires and Gayoom has admitted that he never had any intention of giving up politics and alleged that he resigned from the DRP – the party he created could not be reformed despite all his efforts.

In a press conference on 4th of September to a private channel Gayoom declared that he was forming the party to achieve ‘very important’ national purposes that included:

  • Strengthening Islam in the country and maintain Islam as a religion that they all love and respect.
  • To protect their independence and sovereignty
  • To establish a strong democratic system in the country
  • Ensure happiness and prosperity to the people
  • To reform the country to make it a place where people want to live
  • Uphold public order, peace and stability and facilitate equal opportunity for everyone to advance

Why is he using the ‘Islamic Card’ now when Islam is in no danger in Maldives? The danger as one commentator has said in Minivan News on the same day of the press conference is from the Muslim leaders themselves. He said:

“The Muslim [world] needs leaders who can go beyond petty sloganeering and asserting a hollow supremacy… needs leaders who understand that for a religion to maintain its greatness, it principles need to be as dynamic as the human cultures and societies themselves… what is needed is a change of guard and a new class of leaders who are not afraid to take the much harder route – one of accomplishment and progress; to create a world where a tyrant like Gadafi or terrorist like Osama never again gets mistaken for a ‘Muslim leader’.’

Democracy itself is not in danger in Maldives now or before. What we saw was that the ruling party ( that was in a minority) was thwarted at every stage to establish democratic traditions and move forward with the new constitution.

President Nasheed had respected the majority decisions of the Majlis though such decisions ran counter to good governance – like the appointment of cabinet ministers or of the judicial decisions. He did not use his presidential position to countermand such decisions.

Those outsiders who have been following the developments in Maldives would confirm that despite all the hiccups and obstructive tactics of the opposition, democracy is taking firm roots in a country that had seen only authoritarian regimes until very recently.

Gayoom could have achieved the objectives mentioned in his press conference through the coalition partner – People’s Alliance led by his half brother Abdulla Yameen. Instead we find that Yameen had also ditched the party he created and was the one of the first to register himself with the new party.

In the press conference, Gayoom did not say anything about his intention to contest the next presidential elections. He may still do, though there are other contenders like Yameen who had earlier declared his intention to do so.

We come back to the question as to why Gayoom is plunging into active politics once again when he could have retired with all the benefits he obtained and led a life of a senior statesman?

It looks that the deal he had with the present regime to abstain from politics in return for certain benefits no longer holds good. His past conduct under the three decades of absolute rule may come to haunt him. Perhaps, (it is only a guess) he feels that he has to be in the driving seat in active politics to save himself.

Two issues have come up already.

The present government has ordered the reopening of investigation of the 2003 Maafushi Jail shooting. A Special committee consisting of the Housing Minister, the Attorney General and the Defence Minister has been formed by the President in this connection.

There was an investigation of the riots earlier and the report of January 2004 that has not been published mentioned that there was no emergency situation and that shooting of the prisoners was neither a proportional response nor reasonable means of control.

The Officer who ordered the shooting, Captain Adam Mohamed was granted clemency by Gayoom. A former prison guard who was recently arrested for the shooting in 2003 revealed that the order to shoot came from the “top.”

More dirty details of the unfortunate incident may come out now.

Gayoom was also the Minister of Defence and National Security at the time of the riots.

Second- the scandal involving former President Gayoom and his half brother Abdulla Yameen in the 800 million oil deal has also been revived and it was revealed on 3rd August that the National Security Committee has proposed to summon Gayoom to investigate his involvement in the deal.

The scandal related to buying of subsidised oil through the Singapore Branch of Maldivian State Trading Corporation and selling it to the Burmese Military Junta at black market premium rates.

It looks that President Nasheed is slowly giving up the idealistic positions he has been taking all along. One recent example is the way Maldives has responded to the Human rights violations of Sri Lanka during the last stages of war against the LTTE. Its representative said at the United Nations that one should take note of the violation not only on what happened during the last stages of war but also much earlier thereby diluting the whole thrust of the argument of gruesome violations that took place towards the close of the war when 40,000 civilians were killed.”

Read original article

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Five hundred apply to leave DRP after Gayoom announces PPM

Five hundred people have applied to leave the opposition Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) following former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom’s decision to create a new party, the Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM).

Haveeru reported DRP spokesperson Ali Solih as confirming that 480 people had left the party out of 37,800 registered members.

“Several forms submitted to resign from the party are invalid, including the forms submitted by those actively involved in creating the new party. Their signatures are missing,” he told Haveeru.

The departures were “not a big deal”, he remarked.

The Elections Commission has meanwhile granted the PPM a license to create a party after finding that the required 50 out of 703 signatures submitted were authentic. The PPM is now required to gain 3000 signatures of members to register as a party within nine months, and hold a meeting of 300 people to outline the party’s charter and manifesto.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Third of government’s Dhiraagu shares to be made public

The government has decided to release a third of its shares in local telcoms giant Dhiraagu to the public.

Dhiraagu a major player in the telecommunications, mobile and broadband internet markets of the Maldives, and is one of the country’s most profitable companies.

The government will make a third of its shares available to the public from October, to both local and foreign parties, reports Sun Online. Share prices have not yet been published.

The Maldivian government previously held 55 percent of Dhiraagu’s shares, while the British company Cable and Wireless held the remaining 45 percent. Upon winning the 2008 presidential election, President Nasheed’s government sold 7 percent of the shares to Cable and Wireless, reducing government shares to 48 percent and giving Cable and Wireless a controlling interest.

Minister of Economic Development and Foreign Trade, Mahmoud Razee, told Sun that studies would determine the prices and ratios of shares to be offered in local and international markets, and that the shares would be “affordable” to the average Maldivian.

Minister Razee also stated that as Dhiraagu was a strong company, people could benefit from buying its shares.

Opposition Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) Deputy Leader Ibrahim ‘Mavota’ Shareef told Minivan News that the shares were valuable, but said he was not in favor of selling them.

“As far as [the DRP] is concerned, we do not believe this is a wise decision. Dhiraggu is a very profitable and well-managed company, and it makes a lot of money for the government. This is a time when we are undergoing an economic crisis, and we cannot afford to have these shares dispersed.”

Shareef said he thought most Maldivians would be interested in the shares, but said he doubted whether the majority of people would be able to afford them.

“The people who have the capacity to buy these shares are either foreign companies, or very rich Maldivians,” he said.

The government estimates that the sale of the shares will generate Rf 1.46 billion (US$95 million).

Shareef said the outcome would be obvious as soon as the shares hit the market.

“In the Maldives, we know who has the money. We know a majority of people don’t have the money. There must be some political reason for this decision, it’s not just an economic strategy,” he suggested.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Comment: The price of right-wing politics

Major news networks came under fire recently for jumping to conclusions about the involvement of Islamist groups in the July 22 terror attacks in Norway.

Mainstream media resorted to premature “analyses”, conjecture, and even ‘citations’ from unverified Internet forum lurkers – all of which are highly irresponsible and were rightfully condemned.

A lot of Muslims and anti-racists heaved a sigh of relief on hearing that this latest outrage was, for a change, not inflicted by a Muslim group. For seemingly the first time in recent history, a reasonable argument could now be made that not all terrorists are necessarily Muslim or brown-skinned; an opportunity has risen to delve deeper into the ideologies that underpin these horrifying outbursts of mindless violence.

However, over a week after the quiet Friday afternoon peace was shattered by the worst massacre on Norwegian soil since the second world war, the media appears to have chosen to focus instead on the sensationalist ‘Christian crusader’ angle and the killer’s 1500 page “manifesto”; a lot of commentary has dwelt on whether this is the work of a single crazed man – or whether he represents the vanguard of a new movement.

What is beyond doubt, however, is that the man was clearly led by his politics – and within this lies one of the most important stories of this decade that the media should not fail to address.

The rising hatred

Norwegian security agencies have long reported that right-wing radicalism was on the rise in the country – with Scandinavia, incidentally, producing the largest amount of xenophobic, White Power music and literature.

As it happens, right-wing politics is being revived in several parts of the world – from the United States and Europe, to Pakistan and the Maldives.

Factors such as economic decline in the West, rising unemployment, and the increased globalisation that threatens the very concept of nation states, have seen a corresponding increase in anti-immigration, race-baiting, far-right ultra-nationalist groups.

Ideas that would have been dismissed as the lunatic fringe just a few years ago have captured the curiosity of the mainstream public in many societies.

This brand of politics – characterised by amplified slogans, demonisation of minorities, and central charismatic figures with a penchant for whipping up emotions, have reaped rich political dividends for many in recent years.

With deceptive names alluding to noble concepts of ‘Justice’ and ‘Freedom’, these groups thrive entirely on charged emotional rhetoric steeped in conspiracy theories and artificial feelings of victimisation and insecurity.

The anti-Islamic, race-baiting ‘Party of Freedom’ run by Geert Wilders recently emerged as the third largest party in the Netherlands. The BNP, that remains a pariah in mainstream UK politics, has also been making steady electoral gains over the past decade – with two of its members already in the European Parliament, including Nick Griffin, the much-reviled leader of the organization.

Cheap provocations, such as attempts of a much-criticized pastor to organize mass burnings of the Koran in the US, have increasingly found the easy media attention that they so desperately crave.

Mainstream media attention was also lavished upon the ‘Ground-Zero Mosque’ controversy in New York city – that was successfully used by conservative, right-wing politicians in the US to whip up anti-Islamic sentiments, despite revolving around a building that was neither at Ground-Zero and wasn’t even a mosque.

Denial

Far-right politicians, willing to let society burn in order to enjoy their moment in the spotlight, employ words and rhetoric that threaten the peace and harmony of society – with the full knowledge that they can always refuse to accept responsibility later.

Indeed, Geert Wilders was quick to distance himself from the Oslo killer – who had named him as one of his inspirations – but it is hard to accept that the man who spent years fanning flames of anti-Islamic hatred can suddenly absolve himself of all responsibility for the ideology that directly led to the massacre in Utoya.

While the West grapples with trying to deal with hate figures like Geert Wilders, controversial characters like Zakir Naik and Bilal Philips have inexplicably been invited by the Maldivian government to preach to the public – despite several other countries denying them entry citing serious allegations ranging from terror links to hate speech.

Local political parties and NGOs that have conferred upon themselves the onerous burden of representing Islam in the Maldives adamantly deny that they have any role to play in the increasingly radicalised Dhivehi society – and the rising numbers of Maldivian jihadists being discovered in militant madrassas or war zones of tribal Pakistan.

This denial comes despite their openly stoking flames of anti-semitism and anti-feminism, despite their emotionally charged diatribes on public podiums and radio talk shows, and despite the rapidly mushrooming “Islamic” book shops in Male’ that openly sell Jihadist literature with fiery titles and apocalyptic chapters glorifying war.

At least one English Defence League activist, currently hiding abroad, has admitted that his opinions could have directly influenced the destructive Islamophobia in Breivik.

And yet, the EDL– a toxic, occasionally violent British group accused of racism, have also denied the ties with the mass-murderer in Norway, despite the killer himself claiming close association with them.

Just as their right wing brethren in the Maldives, they too “reject all forms of extremism”, and vow to fight against it.

Hyperbole at home

The Maldivian society’s decided swing to the right in the aftermath of democracy is startling – the political dialogue is marked with hyperbole, and dishonest, wild rhetoric.

Reasonable concerns about establishing diplomatic ties with the state of Israel ended up getting blown up into a full-fledged conspiracy involving evil Zionist doctors plotting to steal body organs from unsuspecting Maldivians.

A proposed change in curriculum was vocally derided as a sinister Israeli plot to undermine national sovereignty.

Disagreements over a regulation that would have permitted the tightly restricted sale of alcohol to foreigners at a business hotel, ended up being painted as a death blow to the very religious foundations of the Maldives – thanks to a shrill campaign started by the Adhaalath (Justice) party and aligned opposition groups that was marked with emotive language, and rhetoric carefully calculated to whip up fear, paranoia and hatred.

Adhaalath party leader Shaheem Ali Saeed would later boast at a recent party congress that it was their tiny party that “organised the largest mass-protests in the country”.

Yes, but at what price?

Birds of Feather

Emotive politics of the far-right contribute to, and depend on, a climate of fear and insecurity.

It is within this shelter of blind hateful ignorance that killers like Anders Breivik emerge, casting themselves in self-aggrandizing roles of ‘warriors’, ‘crusaders’ and ‘mujahideen’ to protect their religion and country from the evil, scheming subversive forces that only exist in their heads.

“If Muhammad was alive today,” he wrote, “Usama Bin Laden would have been his second in command.” The Norwegian killer spent over nine years working on his “manifesto” – but in reality, he could have just taken any random Islamist propaganda leaflet and substituted “Christendom” for “Caliphate” , the “Crusades” for “Jihad” and “Knights Templar” for “Mujahideen”.

Not surprisingly, despite being an avowed Islamophobe, he found ideological similarities with the al-Qaeda – and repeatedly makes references to al-Qaeda’s training manual.

Breivik also found that his ideology seamlessly fit with the Hindu fundamentalist groups in India as well. His “manifesto” quotes from several Hindutva propaganda websites, and applauds Hindutva advocates who ‘do not tolerate the injustice and often riot and attack Muslims when things get out of control”.

Decades of sowing animosity towards Indian Muslims brought Hindu fundamentalists led by AB Vajpayee from fringe obscurity to national power.

But within their one term, the emotionally charged politics of the day resulted ultimately in the deaths of thousands of Muslims and Hindus in the Gujarat communal riots. The same forces would later unleash violence against Christians in the southern Indian state of Karnataka.

The battle of Badr used by Jihadist leaders to stoke fire in their soldier’s hearts, finds its equivalent in the Crusades for Breivik – whose online “manifesto” honours such medieval figures such as Vlad the Impaler and Charles the Hammer.

One can thus easily see that there really isn’t any difference at all between these seemingly competing intolerant forces that are both the victims and perpetrators of the same far-right wing ideologies obsessed with their apocalyptic visions of global domination.

A suitable response

A quarter of a million people took to the streets of Oslo on Monday, to remember the dead.

Unlike nations like Pakistan that have swung so far to the right over decades of ideological poisoning, that thousands actually came out to garland the man who assassinated Salman Taseer, a liberal politician who spoke up for minority rights, Norway’s response to the horrors of July 22 reflects its vastly more mature, and strongly liberal social ideals.

“We will punish him, not by killing him or torturing him, but by defying his every wish”, said a teenager, whose friend was among those killed in the Utoya massacre.

Hundreds of supporters gathered outside a tiny Church where a Christian pastor and a Muslim Imam performed a joint memorial service for Bano Rashid, an 18 year old Muslim girl whose promising life was prematurely snuffed out by the fanatic violence.

Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg greeted the audience at another memorial service in Oslo with the Arabic greeting “Salaam Alaikum”, drawing a cheerful applause – and pushing a stake through the heart of the dark forces that had sought to strike a wedge between the Norwegian people.

The King and Queen of Norway, who openly wept in a Church service for victims, had a similar response of defiance; in his address, the King said that freedom is more important than fear.

Across the board, Norwegian politicians have vowed to respond to terrorism with “more democracy”, “more diversity”, “more peace” and “more tolerance”.

The time has come for media and citizens around the world – including in the Maldives – to stop viewing the theatre of violence through the narrow lens of religion and nationality. The only solution to division, hatred and violence is to confront the language, thoughts and tactics of short-sighted, opportunistic politicians whose only political gimmick is to create a climate of fear and hatred towards foreigners, Jews, Muslims, Christians.

While the scourge of ultra-right wing extremism is the enemy of all societies and peoples, there is a strong message sent out when resistance emerges from the very people that these bigots claim to represent – when whites fight against Aryan supremacists, and Jews protest against Israeli military aggression, and Muslims fight against Islamist violence and hate-mongering.

The Norwegians have shown the way with a dignified, determined response of hope, and peaceful idealism that characterise their society.

It is now up to the rest of the world to follow in their footsteps and extinguish the climate of fear and hatred that allow these abhorrent acts to take place.

In Jens Stoltenbergs’ words: “No one will bomb us to silence. No one will shoot us to silence. We must never stop standing up for values… our answer to violence is even more democracy, more humanity”

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)

Comment: The politics of arrogance

There are so many things wrong with our democracy. A dysfunctional judiciary, stunted and already disintegrating party system, politicised and unprofessional media, polarized society, growing intolerance, xenophobia and the list goes on. But whatever the affliction is, the one underlying factor is always corruption. We know, corruption is an old song sung by all politicians everywhere. But this time around, we are not talking about the corruption of the old, the established and the already corrupt, but about the corruption of a fairly young generation of politicians who will possibly remain in Maldivian politics for another 30-40 years. We are talking about the corruption of a generation of politicians who could have been defined otherwise.

What went wrong?

The Maldives is celebrated as a model for peaceful transition to democracy. The opening up of the political system that began in 2003 led to free and fair elections fairly quickly. The old autocrat was not arrested and thrown into jail as happens in so many other countries, but instead given a hefty pension package and left to himself for the most part. Three branches of the state were made separate and independent, and the fourth estate was given its due freedom. What went wrong?

What went wrong is strikingly similar to what goes wrong in so many African democracies. The liberator who wrenches his people from the clutches of exploitative colonial powers is hailed in as the good leader, and then the people are forever stuck with him. And he is good, at least in the prologue. He must have believed in freedom, in people’s right to make their own destinies and to live a good life, to have fought so long and hard and put his neck on the line. For his bravery and courage, he is rewarded with legitimacy, people’s love and admiration. And he is handed the ultimate prize (via a free and fair election, of course)- the chance to become the president of the first real democracy in that country. But somewhere along the line, the leader miscalculates how far he can push his legitimacy and thinks himself above the law. In order to ‘save his people’, he convinces himself that he has to do whatever it takes, and sometimes the whatever part involves ugly nasty immoral things like corruption, bribery and appeasing big businesses at the cost of the public good.

Let’s not forget the party machinery that often ushers in these liberator-type leaders. What eventually ends up becoming a political party often starts out as a movement, a movement for freedom, liberation and democracy. The sole purpose of the movement-cum-political party is to free the people. And as such, upon independence or at the end of dictatorship, the party becomes a mere vehicle for the liberator-leader to ride in to take his rightful place as the head of the new democracy. Sadly, the party ceases to become anything more. Tangled in the politics of the day, the party fails to mature. It lacks a clearly articulated ideology, a set of values or anything for that matter that can define it independently of its liberation history. And just for the record, no, five key pledges does not amount to an ideology. People cannot be expected to analyse the party manifesto and derive the party’s philosophy on their own, if it exists at all. And no, Maumoon Abdul Gayoom’s personality does not amount to an ideology either.

What is so wrong now?

The problem is, not only does the party continue to be the liberator’s vehicle to remain in power but it begins to destroy all other parties around it, sometimes by guns and outright violence, but in our case with ‘secret’ deals that are not only accepted, but boasted about in political circles and laughed over at cocktail parties. “Hey, I paid Mrf 5 million and a BMW for that guy over there” wink. “Oh really, well I paid about Mrf 15 million for this guy right here. Prices keep rising by the day…we better buy up all available on the market before prices go through the roof! Hohoho!” And so, riding high on liberation victory, the leader and his party come to practice a vile sort of politics. A politics of “only we can be trusted with power” and “damn those slow and tedious democratic process.” In short, the politics of arrogance.

Of course, the liberator and his party machinery try to justify this politics of arrogance. They say that if they do not deliver and make good on their key pledges, then not only may they lose elections come 2013, but that, lo and behold, they will surely lose it to the old dictator or his brother! Not only that, if the MDP fails to deliver, ‘the people’ will cease to believe in the promise of democracy! And God forbid, we cannot let these things happen, not after all the blood and tears, not after trying so damn hard to go by that complicated and cumbersome constitution.

Therefore, in its mad frenzy to get everything done before the clock strikes 12 o’clock in 2013, the MDP government, instead of putting up a steady honest fight, is buying the entire game and in the process, relying less and less on democratic processes. We need not look beyond parliament for evidence. Let us be clear, the MDP is not outwardly undemocratic. Besides the occasional slip of the tongue, it sticks to its narrative of democratic governance at the podiums. But away from the cameras and the public’s eye, the party and most Maldivian politicians engage in what can be termed as real deal-making. And this real deal-making almost always subverts democratic processes. Surely, this has to be informal politics at its best.

And again, just for the record, given the blatant political prostitution in parliament, even if the government builds an apartment for every Maldivian (doesn’t matter if they can afford it), a hospital (too expensive to maintain) on every island, establishes a fast ferry between all islands and makes every youth drug-free (but perhaps jobless), that does not prove that democracy worked. It merely proves that the MDP party machinery and its tactics worked. And these are two very different claims that have far-reaching consequences.

Why is it wrong?

The bitter result of the politics of arrogance and the corruption and bribery it necessitates is that it is imbibing a new generation of politicians with the view that politics is ultimately about being in power. That without absolute power, you cannot get anything done. That power is the be-all and end-all of politics. In doing so, they have changed the narrative of the land from “what is good?” to “what is the lesser evil?” And that is a damn shame. For if there was a reason I voted, it was because I trusted my elected official to make wise decisions that would contribute to me living well, and at the same time contribute to the greater good of the society. And I also trusted that official to not always see the greater good in monetary terms. And I also trusted that official not to cast the building of a harbor, an airport or a housing project as incompatible with sticking to democratic processes.

So the story goes that, the politics of arrogance not only deprives a nation of honest and virtuous politicians, but also buries the common good and on its tomb, plants the seeds of political power and waters it with the greed and lust of an emerging generation of crass politicians who are morally stunted and politically shackled for years to come.

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)