Politics – Page 2 – Minivan News

“I do not want to stay in this position even a day beyond November 11”: President Waheed

President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan has said he does not want to stay on as President when his term expires on November 11, as uncertainty continues to hang over the possibility of holding an election after police forcibly stopped Saturday’s polls.

“It is not in the best interest of this country if there is no elected president when the current presidential term ends on November 10. I do not want to stay in this position even a day beyond November 11,” Waheed told the press today.

The Supreme Court verdict, which annulled the first round of election held on September 7, also said Waheed’s government should continue past November 11 if there is no president elect. The Jumhooree Party (JP) and Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM) have pledged their support to Waheed staying on, but former President and Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) presidential candidate Mohamed Nasheed has called for Waheed to resign, allowing a transitional government under the Speaker of Parliament to oversee elections.

Waheed was Nasheed’s former deputy and took over power in February 2012 after Nasheed resigned following a police and military mutiny.

The Supreme Court and People’s Majlis must also be involved in deciding an interim arrangement, Waheed said and added that he does not know what to do should the country fail to elect a president.

“It is not me who will decide on an arrangement post November 11. It is not me who will decide that right? There are others who should shoulder the responsibility. I believe the Supreme Court and the People’s Majlis need to think about this,” he said.

The best way forward was to hold first round on November 2 and if necessary hold a second round on November 9, Waheed said. He has called on the Elections Commission and all presidential candidates to continue talks and come to an agreement on dates and solve the disputes over the voter registry.

Holding an election is not the government’s responsibility, but that of the EC, he repeatedly said. However, the government would not support an election in which majority of presidential candidates refused to contest.

Speaking of the police’s halt of Saturday’s election, Waheed said: “The government’s position was that the government could not support an election that all candidates could not participate in, in violation of the Supreme Court guidelines, an election only one candidate was to participate in. So police told the Elections Commission in writing that they would not support an election in violation of Supreme Court guidelines. Stopping support and stopping an election are very different.”

An hour before polls were to open on Saturday, police surrounded the Elections Commission and forcibly prevented it from proceeding with the scheduled election, stating that they would not facilitate an election in which all three presidential candidates refuse to sign the voter registry. Police had previously obstructed run-off elections due to be held on September 28.

EC President Fuwad Thowfeek has condemned police’s obstruction of elections and said the elections process must not be subject to the whim of candidates. Further, failure of PPM and JP to do what they must do does not mean citizen should be deprived of their right to vote, Thowfeek said.

However, Waheed said elections must only proceed on procedures agreed to by all candidates. At present the elections crisis was not a legal matter, but a political matter and hence must be solved through dialogue.

“I believe not everything can be solved legally. This is a political matter. So politicians must speak to each other, give in when they need to, and come to an agreement. When a date is fixed, [an election] can only succeed when all candidates agree and facilitate the process.

“I will say again, it is not in the interest of the Maldives to hold an election in which only one candidate can contest. The entire international community in the past year and half pressured me not to hold an election that President Nasheed cannot contest. Many parties tried to take action against President Nasheed. I am happy today that President Nasheed can contest. Similarly, President Nasheed has to be happy that other candidates can take part. President Nasheed should not take part in an election that other candidates cannot contest in. If he does so, we should question his moral principles,” he said.

“An election by force cannot be held in the Maldives. An election by force will only cause bloodshed. I will not allow that. To anyone. No matter what the international community says, and no matter what political parties say, my utmost responsibility today is Maldivian citizen’s security. So I will not allow that,” he added.

The United Nations, the Commonwealth, the European Union and several foreign governments including the United States, the United Kingdom and India have urged elections to be expedited.

Waheed said although he accepted advice from foreign organizations, it would be him who made the final decision.

“People of our country are not any less capable or less educated than those in other countries, even the Western countries. They cannot come and tell us what to do. We have lived in difficult places. More difficult places than that in which people who are coming to give lessons have lived in. I have lived. I know. The dangers and opportunities in the Maldives. We do things with the advice of others. The Commonwealth’s advice and other governments. But I will make the last decision. People will slander [me]. A lot of foul things have been said about me. There is none worse than me in the international media. But today, I must not consider what people are saying. I have to consider the country’s interests. To carry the country forward without any bloodshed.”

Waheed has appointed Defense Minister Mohamed Nazim as a mediator between political parties to solve the voter registry dispute, but said an agreement had not yet been found despite several attempts.

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

Commonwealth’s reputation at stake over failure of polls in the Maldives: Canada

The Commonwealth’s reputation is at stake following the obstruction of scheduled elections by police in the Maldives, Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird has warned.

“Canada is deeply disappointed that the rescheduled first round of presidential elections was delayed. The elections commission was not permitted to fulfill its constitutional mandate of managing and conducting these elections without interference,” Baird said in a statement.

Canada offered its “continued support for the perseverance of the Elections Commission of Maldives under these unacceptable circumstances.”

Baird reiterated that international election observers – including a delegation from the Commonwealth – had agreed that the annulled September 7 polls were free and fair.

“I repeat yet again that this series of delays flies in the face of the democratic values of the Commonwealth,” Baird said.

““A new date for the election must be set without delay and upheld by all parties concerned. The elections commission must be permitted to organise free, fair and inclusive elections without interference. Canada calls on all parties in Maldives to exercise restraint and remain calm in the interest of the Maldivian people, who should be permitted to express their democratic will through the ballot box. The people of Maldives deserve to have their voices heard,” he declared.

“Canada continues its call for robust Commonwealth engagement so that the electoral process can move forward and democracy can be strengthened in Maldives. The reputation of the Commonwealth is at stake,” he added.

EU High Representative Catherine Ashton said she was “deeply concerned” that the presidential election in the Maldives had again been prevented from taking place, and that the work of the Election Commission had to be halted following the intervention of the police.

“If the democratic process is to be brought back on track, a new date must be set without delay so that the Maldivian people can freely choose a new President by 11 November, in conformity with the constitution,” said Ashton.

“The EU reiterates its confidence in the impartiality and efficiency of the Maldivian Election Commission. It recalls that elections cannot successfully be held if the process can be repeatedly brought to a halt through legal injunctions. The forces of law and order must facilitate the democratic process,” she said in a statement.

“Failure to hold credible elections would be to deny the Maldivian people their democratic rights. Further instability would also damage the country’s economy and its relations with its international partners,” Ashton added.

The UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon meanwhile said the 88 percent voter turnout in the September 7 poll clearly expressed “the aspirations and the will of the Maldivian people”.

“The Secretary-General strongly believes that the legitimate will of the people should not be denied,” read a statement from the UN.

Expressing “deep concern” over the delay of the vote “despite concerted efforts by the Maldives Elections Commission”, Ban Ki-moon urged “political leaders and state institutions to live up to their responsibilities, respect the democratic process and participate in a credible, peaceful and inclusive re-run election as soon as possible, so that a new president can be inaugurated on 11 November in accordance with the Constitution.”

Diplomatic spat

Earlier in October President Mohamed Waheed wrote a letter of complaint to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, accusing Baird of making “inappropriate and derogatory remarks” towards Acting Foreign Minister Mariyam Shakeela during the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG)’s meeting on September 27.

In his letter to Prime Minister Harper, Waheed complained that Baird “posed several harshly worded questions… concerning domestic politics in the Maldives”, and said these “put unnecessary pressure on an otherwise excellent relationship” between the Maldives and Canada.

Baird’s office responded to Waheed’s complaint by pointing out “the irony of the Acting Foreign Minister of the Maldives representing that country at CMAG, when her President received five percent of the vote in the first round of the election. Perhaps that is where President Waheed took offence.”

“It might have also been when Minister Baird pointed out to CMAG members that the second round of elections were ‘suspended’ under mysterious circumstances and called on Maldivian officials to proceed with the second round of elections without delay,” said Baird’s Spokesperson Rick Roth, in a statement.

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

Comment: Maldives’ judiciary an impediment to democratic consolidation

This article first appeared on Dhivehi Sitee. Republished with permission.

In September 2003, 30-year dictator Maumoon Abdul Gayoom declared a state of emergency after the dictatorships guards killed an inmate named Evan Naseem in Maafushi jail. Security services on duty resorted to the use of firearms to defuse the revolt, killing three others and injuring 17.

The riots that erupted forced Gayoom to initiate a reform agenda. The security forces and the judiciary came to the forefront of the discourse on democratic transition. The constitutional assembly, which proposed democratic restructuring of the system of governance and the report published by legal expert Professor Paul Robinson in 2004, highlighted these reforms needed for the criminal justice system. Professor Robinson concluded that “the reforms needed [for the Maldivian judiciary] are wide-ranging, and that without dramatic change the system and its public reputation are likely to deteriorate further.”

The Constitution ratified in August 2008, which paved way for the first democratic elections won by Mohamed Nasheed in October that year, consisted of a mechanism to re-appoint sitting judges during the interim period from August 2008 to 2010 and ensure judicial independence for the first time in Maldives’ history.

During the interim period, in accordance with sub-article (b) of Article 285 of the Constitution, the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) was mandated to ascertain whether all sitting judges possess mandatory characteristics and standards prescribed under Article 149. Aishath Velezinee, former JSC member appointed by Nasheed, who publicly spoke out about JSC’s failures, claims that judges appointed during Gayoom’s regime secured their positions on the bench through a “Failed Silent Coup” in 2010 which subverted the Constitutional processes to re-appoint judges. In January 2011, her criticism of the manipulation of the Constitution by judicial actors made her the victim of a knife attack.

The interim Supreme Court judges, who were also subject to Article 285, wrote to the Nasheed administration as early as June 2010, declaring that they would permanently remain on the bench. Velezinee recalled the appointments to the Supreme Court as a “grave blunder.” The JSC defied Article 285, declaring it “symbolic” and swore-in all sitting judges, securing their tenure for life. A report published by the International Commission of Jurists in February 2011, also raises concerns about “the politicisation of the judicial vetting process.”

Coup to undo democratic gains

The first democratically elected government of Nasheed was forcefully brought to an end on 7 February 2012 by a televised coup d’état, led by loyalists of dictator Gayoom’s regime, and facilitated by Nasheed’s deputy Mohamed Waheed. The international community was quick to recognise the post-coup government headed by Waheed. A Commission of National Inquiry [CoNI] backed by the Commonwealth declared the chaotic transfer of power “lawful”.

The CoNI report published at the end of August 2012 was heavily criticised by the MDP, and with good reason, claiming that the inquiry selectively ignored evidence that did not fit its contrived conclusion.

International legal experts also echoed MDP’s concerns with regard to the report. The MDP, however, accepted the report with reservations as it acknowledged police brutality on 6, 7, and 8 February 2012. To date its recommendations regarding police brutality have not been implemented, resulting in impunity for Special Operations officers who were involved in the violent crackdown in early February 2012.

During the onset of the political turmoil, MDP maintained that elections should be held that same year, without letting the post-coup regime “entrench itself.” International community supported calls for an early election in 2012, although Waheed’s administration stated that “earliest an election could be held under the Maldivian constitution was July 2013.”

In July 2012, MDP’s presidential candidate Nasheed was prosecuted for the arrest of chief judge of the Criminal Court, whom the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) failed to take any action against despite his prior criminal record and misconduct in 2011.

Nasheed also faced proceedings against him at the Civil Court over allegations of defamation made against him by dictator-loyalists Minister of Defence Mohamed Nazim and Commissioner of Police Abdulla Riyaz who led Nasheeds ouster. Over 20 MDP parliamentarians and some 800 active members and supporters were also subjected to various politically motivated criminal proceedings against them. In hindsight, the period leading up to elections was used by the post-coup regime to create shock and awe among the electorate, characterised by manufactured incidents and political persecution of MDP supporters in order to dissuade them from taking part in political activity and deflect attention away from the disputed legitimacy of the regime.

The juridical system continues to act as the means by which the regime achieves these ends under a democratic façade. Without a constitutional mandate to regulate lawyers, the Supreme Court issued a resolution for all practicing lawyers and prosecutors in April 2012. The resolution restricted lawyers’ freedom of expression, ordering that lawyers shall not discuss or criticise judicial proceedings or judges.

Lawyers were pressured to sign the resolution since the courts refused right of audience to those who didn’t. Ahmed Abdul Afeef who was part of Nasheed’s legal team was not able to represent him in court since he had protested the resolution and remained without signing it.

The muzzling of lawyers didn’t end there; Abdullah Haseen who represents a huge number of pro-democracy protestors was suspended for appearing on a TV show on Raajje TV disseminating information of the law. Although there is no legislation that prohibits sketching inside the courthouse, a lawyer named Shafaz Wajeeh was fined by the Supreme Court for his sketch. Lawyer and MDP parliamentarian Imthiyaz Fahmy is currently being prosecuted for contempt of court due to remarks he has made against the judiciary, although his comments are in line with international bodies such as the United Nations Human Rights Committee.

Nasheeds prosecution further revealed the state of Maldives’ judiciary to the international community. Trial observer Blinne Ní Ghrálaigh from Bar Human Rights Committee of England and Wales noted in her report that the panel of judges in the Hulhumale Magistrates’ Court was “cherry-picked for their likelihood to convict by a highly politicised JSC.”

The 2012 report by United Nations Special Rapporteur on Independence of Judges and Lawyers Gabriela Knaul detailed the crisis Maldives’ criminal justice system is faced with. The report expressed concerns over the “politicised and inadequate” JSC, noting that “the concept of independence of the judiciary has been misconstrued and misinterpreted in the Maldives, including amongst judicial actors” to benefit judges, enabling a culture of unaccountability. The UN Special Rapporteur also questioned legitimacy of the Hulhumale Magistrates’ Court since it contravened the Judicature Act 2010 and was declared invalid by a parliamentary oversight committee in November 2012.

The selective manner in which the JSC has taken disciplinary measures against judges suggests that the judicial watchdog refrains from taking action where it suits its political needs to shield loyalists of the former regime. In 2009, then Chief Judge of the High Court was removed from his position, and the JSC suspended a Civil Court judge for sexual misconduct. In 2013, a Criminal Court judge was suspended for sexually harassing a public prosecutor and Chief Judge of the High Court who was hearing Nasheeds appeals was also suspended.

However, it has not occurred to the JSC to take any form of action against Justice Ali Hameed of the Supreme Court whose scandalous escapade in Colombo with three prostitutes have become public knowledge with leaked video footage of him doing the deed. The Bar Association of Maldives called for the immediate suspension of Justice Hameed back in July 2012. JSC’s inconsistency in penalizing Justice Hameed is left unscathed so he can sit in the Supreme Court hearing the motions filed by Qasim Ibrahim who has close family ties to Gayoom’s family. It is also worth remembering the motion filed by Gayoom’s half-brother Abdulla Yameen Abdul Gayoom at the Supreme Court.

Ballots to restore democracy

One of many gigantic posters of incumbent Mohamed Waheed put up across Male' ahead of 7 September polls. Waheed got 5%. Photo: Aznym

One of many gigantic posters of incumbent Mohamed Waheed put up across Male’ ahead of 7 September polls. Waheed got 5%. Photo: Aznym

February this year, the Elections Commission of the Maldives (EC) announced the presidential election to be held on 7 September 2013. On 28 July 2013 the EC officially announced the order of the candidates on the ballot paper, after approving the candidacy of all four candidates; Qasim Ibrahim with his Jumhooree Party (JP) and Islamist party Adhaalath (AP) coalition; Dr Waheed, independent, incumbent president, endorsed then, by Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP); Abdulla Yameen Abdul Gayoom from the Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) in a coalition with Maldivian Development Alliance (MDA); and Nasheed from Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP).

Foreign and local observers such as the Commonwealth, the European Union, Transparency Maldives, Human Rights Commission of the Maldives declared that the first round of polls were “peaceful and inclusive” with a markedly high voter turnout of 88%. Transparency Maldives, which observed the election across the country, stated “none of the incidents reported on Election Day would have a “material impact on the outcome of the election”.

The chair of the Commonwealth observer group, former Prime Minister of Malta Dr. Lawrence Gonzi stated, “the vote count at the polling station was highly transparent with media monitors, party observers, and national and international observers able to scrutinize the process closely.”

In accordance with sub-article (a) of Article 111 of the Constitution and sub-article (a) of Article 19 of the Presidential Elections Act 2008, the EC began preparations for the presidential election’s runoff as none of the four candidates secured 50% of the votes; Nasheed had 45%, Waheed an embarrassing 5% and Qasim who had 24% came closely behind Abdul-Gayoom who secured 25%. The third place JP coalition refused to accept the first round of elections, and filed a motion at the Supreme Court requesting annulment of first round of polls. The JP also filed a motion at the High Court, requesting the Court to release the voters’ list.

JP produced three documents as evidence for their motion at the High Court, which indicated three lists of alleged discrepancies in the voters’ registry. Out of the first list that JP claimed consisted of deceased people who appeared on the registry, only seven were found on the original voters’ registry, and five were found to be alive. The other list consisted of allegedly repeated names of eligible voters. The EC’s legal counsel later proved in court that these were not repeated names but in reality different people with different national identification numbers and dates of birth. The third list consisted of people who were on Male Municipality’s Special Register who have mailing addresses registered in the capital. The High Court decided that there was no evidence of fraudulent activity with regard to the motion. However, it allowed supervised viewing of the electoral registry.

Supreme tyranny of the electoral process

Protests near the Supreme Court in Male' as it deliberated JP's case to annul 7 September election Photo: Aznym

Protests near the Supreme Court in Male’ as it deliberated JP’s case to annul 7 September election Photo: Aznym

Article 172 of the Constitution indicates that the High Court has the appellate jurisdiction for electoral motions, while Article 113 states the Supreme Court shall have final jurisdiction over such motions. Regardless, JP filed their motion directly at the apex court. MDP, the Attorney General (AG) and PPM made inter-partes claims to the motion, with PPM supporting JP’s claim and with the AG calling for the Court to order the Prosecutor General and Maldives Police Service (MPS) to investigate the alleged “irregularities” in the electoral registry.

The request by the AG is contrary to electoral laws and the Maldives Constitution, which clearly outlines the forum and mechanism to investigate and adjudicate on disputed results of an election. Sub-article (b) of Article 64 of the Elections Act 2008 states that if electoral laws have been violated, only the EC has the legal authority to initiate criminal proceedings through the Prosecutor General. Article 62 stipulates that the electoral complaints mechanism shall be established by the EC, and if a party is not satisfied with the recourse given by the complaints bureau, he or she may file a case at the High Court in accordance with sub-article (a) of Article 64.

The EC’s lawyer, former AG Husnu Al Suood noted an astounding lack of evidence to back JP’s claims. Suood also claimed that any delay could result in a constitutional void, citing US Supreme Court case Bush v. Al Gore 2000. MDP’s lawyers Hisaan Hussein and Hassan Latheef expressed concern at the lack of substantial evidence to claim electoral fraud, and stated that JP had not submitted complaints to the EC regarding the registry when the EC had publicly requested for complaints with regard to the publicized list of eligible voters.

JP’s lawyer and its presidential candidate Qasim’s running mate Hassan Saeed stated that the JP had thirteen reasons for annulment, reiterating claims made at the High Court. At the proceedings Saeed requested that; the security services oversee a fresh round of elections after nullifying the first round and for the Court to issue an injunction halting the EC’s work to hold the runoff dated 28 September 2013. The AG Azima Shakoor echoed JP’s criticism over the EC, but refrained from vocally supporting an annulment. The international best practice where either a public prosecutor or state attorney does not support actions of a state institution would be to refrain from commenting.

It is of importance to note such procedural irregularities that took place during the proceedings for this extraordinary motion. Despite the case being deemed a constitutional matter by the Supreme Court, and anonymous witnesses whose identities are protected by courts are only very rarely admitted in serious criminal cases, the apex court acted as a court of first-instance, admitting 14 witnesses submitted by JP who gave their testimonies in secrecy. Out of the three witnesses submitted by the EC, only one was admitted.

The AG also withheld certain evidence and this was left unquestioned by the Court. The AG’s office requested to submit a police intelligence report as “confidential” evidence – solely submitted as evidence to the Court’s Bench. The Chief Justice responded on behalf of the Bench, inquiring whether the intelligence report (or at least parts relevant) should be disclosed to the EC since their lawyers requested it. In her response to the Chief Justice, the AG stated that she will not submit the police intelligence report if the contents of the report would be disclosed to the EC.

“Where is my vote?”

Protesters near Supreme Court hold up cartoons making fun of disgraced Justice Ali Hameed Photo: Aznym

Protesters near Supreme Court hold up cartoons making fun of disgraced Justice Ali Hameed Photo: Aznym

At approximately 8:00 pm on 23 September 2013, four justices from the apex court signed and issued a stay order indefinitely postponing the runoff election until the court reaches a verdict. After the issuance of the stay order, the Commonwealth, European Union, Transparency Maldives, Human Rights Commission of Maldives, the United Kingdom, United States of America, Canada, Russia, and India all expressed concern over the postponement of the second round, calling Maldivian authorities to hold the second round according to the timescales stipulated under the Maldivian constitution.

At the proceedings the next day, the Supreme Court ejected and suspended lawyers Suood representing the EC, Hussein and Latheef representing MDP as a third party to the case, claiming that they were in contempt of court for their comments on social media regarding the Court’s stay order. Subsequently the MDP revoked its inter-partes claim to the case, claiming that the Court cannot guarantee the rights of over 95,000 of its supporters.

MDP’s chairperson Moosa Manik sent an open letter to the Chief Justice, criticizing the apex court’s contravention of the Constitution by denying fundamental right of reply and issuing a stay order indefinitely suspending sub-article (a) of Article 111 of the Constitution. The chairperson also called on the Chief Justice to restrain the Court to the “legal ambit of the Constitution” and “uphold Article 8 of the Constitution, which states that all powers of the State shall be exercised in accordance with the Constitution.”

After weeks of countrywide protests against indefinite postponement of the runoff election, the four Justices; Abdullah Saeed, Ali Hameed, Adam Mohamed Abdullah and Ahmed Abdullah Didi who infamously legitimised the Hulhumale Magistrates’ Court earlier this year, also issued the stay order halting elections, and on 7 October 2013 decided to annul the first round of elections held on 7 September 2013. Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz and Justices Abdullah Areef and Ahmed Muthasim Adnan gave dissenting judgments, which claimed that the Court has adjudicated based on “inadmissible evidence” which the EC, the respondent in the motion, was not privy to, and questioned the Court’s jurisdiction in accepting the motion prior to the High Court.

The confrontations the judiciary continue to have with the legislature and executive from 2008 to present day is proof that elements within the Maldives’ judiciary is adamant on holding onto the power structures that existed during the former dictator Gayoom’s regime. The dregs of dictatorship continue to impede realisation of democratic governance in Maldives as envisioned in the Constitution.

The final chance to consolidate democracy through universal suffrage is at risk due to justices in the Supreme Court who have assumed supreme powers unto themselves, in order to benefit those politicians who unequivocally support their tenure, and are against overhauling or reforming the judiciary.

Mushfique Mohamed is a former Public Prosecutor and a member of MDP’s Electoral Complaints Committee. He has an LLB & a MScEcon in Post-colonial Politics from Aberystwyth University.

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

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

Comment: Plan B

This article first appeared on Dhivehi Sitee. Republished with permission.

On 19 September 2003 Evan Naseem, an inmate in Maafushi jail was brutally beaten and murdered by police, sparking off pro-democracy protests which ultimately led to the end of Maumoon Abdul Gayoom’s authoritarian regime.

Now, a decade later, the Supreme Court is expected to reach a verdict on whether or not to annul the votes cast in the presidential election held on September 7, the second democratic election ever to be held in the Maldives. A Supreme Court ruling that orders a revote would amount to a court order for an authoritarian reversal – there would be no second round on September 28, or on any other day in the near future.

Tragic as it is, this seems to be the most likely outcome of the hearings, for this road to the Supreme Court is where this election was always going to lead – it was planned this way. No matter what the election results were — if they put Mohamed Nasheed in the lead, the ultimate decision of who wins would be made by the judiciary, the most corrupt and dysfunctional of the three separated powers.

The judiciary is the biggest blunder of the Maldivian democracy. Nowhere near enough effort was made to free it from authoritarian clutches during the two and a half years of democratic governance.

First came the dismissal of Article 285 as ‘symbolic’, leaving all corrupt and unqualified judges on the bench in direct violation of the new Constitution; then the silent coup in the Supreme Court, followed by continuous violations of the Constitution and rule of law by the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), none of which were dealt with adequately.

It was the corruption in the judiciary that contributed most to the events of February 7. The decision taken by the executive and the security forces to arrest the most subversive of judges – Abdulla Mohamed – was the weapon which authoritarians used most effectively to incite agitation and anger against Nasheed’s government, sustaining nightly protests until the police joined the street protesters and, together with those pulling their strings, presented Nasheed with the choice: resign or die.

Of course, the post-coup government took absolutely no action to reform the judiciary. To even expect them to do so would be the height of delusion. In the turbulent aftermath of the coup, former JSC member Aishath Velezinee who had attempted to thwart every one of JSC’s violations of the law, put it all together in book form; and several international experts brought out report after report with recommendations on how to reform the judiciary – to no avail. Most disappointingly, MDP, despite the bitter lessons of the past, took no concrete action either.

By July this year, judicial corruption had got to the stage where a judge could continue to sit on the Supreme Court bench despite being caught on camera having sex with three prostitutes in a Colombo hotel room. This man, Ali Hameed, will be one of seven men who will today decide whether or not our votes count.

That this is where it will all come to was becoming clear in the lead up to the election when Gayoom’s Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) began making noises about going to the courts if there were discrepancies in the vote count.

While MDP and Mohamed Nasheed never stopped campaigning since the CoNI report in August 2012, which – with the blessing of the international community – legitimised the coup, PPM candidate Yameen hardly ever left the comfort of his own house to meet with the people whose votes he supposedly needed to be elected as president.

Ever since the election in which the Maldivian people resoundingly endorsed Mohamed Nasheed and said an equally loud ‘No’ to Mohamed Waheed Hassan Manik – the large façade that helped block from view the dirtiness of the coup – the entire country has been plunged into manufactured ‘uncertainty’ over the results.

First Gasim Ibrahim of Jumhooree Party went into hysterics, maintaining that he was the winner ‘if you minus the 90,000 votes’ that Nasheed received. Backing him are the same dark forces working in the name of religion that so cleverly contributed to the coup. Adhaalath Party’s Sheikh Imran Abdulla, Islamic MinisterShaheem Ali Saeed, Sheikh Ilyas Abdulla, and lately Salaf Jamiyya’s star preacher Sheikh Adam Shameem, have all come out to call for an uprising against ‘the Godless Nasheed’ in the name of Islam.

The idea is to provoke, provoke, and provoke MDP supporters and other democracy activists to come out on the streets in protest so that the security forces can crack down on them, creating an environment in which holding elections become ‘unsafe’. So far, the MDP has been able to keep calm and continue with their campaigning for the second round, deliberately ignoring the relentless smear campaign against Nasheed and the daily negative campaigning, even the ridiculous black magic and sorcery antics. But for how long?

In parallel with all this has been the forward march towards the courts. Gasim Ibrahim led it, but who is pushing him? In the beginning, it seemed to me almost certain that Gasim and Yameen were in on this together. They cooked up a plan to run for presidency so they can split the votes and then later form an ‘everyone but Nasheed’ coalition that would defeat him in the second round. But, information from a reliable source negated this theory. One individual who left Gasim’s JP shortly after the election to join the MDP relayed this story:

“Former military man Mohamed Fayaz [or F.A, as he is commonly known], one of the main coup-enablers who put his support behind Gasim, advised him to join Yameen following the election results. What else was there for Gasim to do?
Gasim responded with unbridled anger, swore at FA, and told him: ‘I would rather walk into the sea with my wives and children than join Yameen.’”

Gasim is absolutely convinced he should have won. It is clear from the speech he made on September 9 in which he kept talking of his belief that he should have got 70,000 votes, not 50,000. Many have pointed out that Gasim is looking at the election as a business transaction. He poured in enough money to buy 70,000 votes, so he expects to get them. Gasim is, after all, the biggest tycoon in town.

Helping Gasim remain committed to the delusion is running mate Dr Hassan Saeed, once Nasheed’s advisor, then Waheed’s. He respected neither. Shortly after the coup, he was secretly recorded describing Waheed as the weakest politician in the Maldives. Now he’s behind Gasim, advocating in court on his behalf to annul the first round of September 7, not because he believes in Gasim’s ability to be President, but because it will prevent Nasheed from returning to power – Hassan Saeed’s (and a fair few coup leaders’) reason for being.

Gayoom and Yameen, ever the political vultures, have swooped in on the carcass of Gasim’s dreams, seeing it as the opportunity they have been waiting for, if not working behind the scenes to create. They have brought out to advocate on their behalf one of their big guns – Attorney General Azima Shakoor, the woman of void ab initio fame who annulled the largest foreign investment agreement in the history of the Maldives with the stroke of a pen and absolutely zero respect for national or international law.

Without so much as asking the Elections Commission about the alleged discrepancies in the vote registry, she was busy all day Wednesday arguing against the institution. As is habitual for PPM and other coup-makers, she cited the Constitution to justify her presence – Article 133 allows the Attorney General to enter into any case if it involves the interests of the people and/or State.

Problem is, she is not advocating on behalf of the people or the state but for Gayoom, her master since childhood. PPM and JP are taking strength from each other. The courts (including the High Court) have asked for evidence of discrepancies to back their claims, which neither party have been able to provide so far. Yesterday Dr Saeed argued that such evidence is unnecessary; given that the Attorney General – the Attorney General! -has stated that there are discrepancies.

What evidence does the court need when it has the AG’s word? It matters not that she has been lying through her teeth, saying that the National Registration, too, has filed several complaints against the voter registry at the Elections Commission when the registry has done no such thing.

Elements of the police, most likely the very same ones that enabled the coup on February 7, are in on it, of course. As the court asks for evidence, they are busy manufacturing it. Operation Blue Wave – the ominous strategy of providing ‘special training’ to hundreds of policemen and women and stationing them across the country to prepare for ‘inevitable discrepancies’ – is now bearing fruit. Despite the confirmation from over a thousand domestic and foreign observers that it was a free and fair election with a bare minimum of errors and absolutely no room for vote stuffing, the police are finding fresh ‘rigging’ attempts on a daily basis.

Despite renewed appeals from both local and foreign actors to respect election results, circulating on the social media today is also a ‘leaked’, ‘secret’ report of eight pages that count thousands of instances of alleged vote fraud. What this forgery resembles most is the similarly constructed CoNI report of August 2012. But, of course, there will be many hundreds who will believe it. Just as there are thousands who still believe the CoNI report.

To spur on the radical elements within the security forces, leaders of the ‘Godless Nasheed’ anti-campaign, the ‘rent-a-sheikhs’, have been targeting the police and military in their hate-mongering. Not satisfied with mentioning them in every public lecture as custodians of Maldivian nationalism and Islam, Sheikh Adam Shameem addressed them in two special lectures intended especially for them yesterday and early this morning.

Shameem’s hate-filled public lecture – broadcast on state TV and repeated on the private channels owned by coup-makers – was frightening, arguing against democracy, especially multi-party democracy, as a Western evil imported to destroy Maldivian faith in Islam. If this is what he said publicly, one can only imagine what he told the security forces in their barracks.

What the plan seems to be right now is this: the Supreme Court is to rule today that there must be a revote, which means that there will be no second round on September 28, nor a President by November 11, as is stipulated in the Constitution. Already, Madam Void ab Initio has voided void itself, saying not having a president would not leave a power vacuum.

If this Plan B is implemented, it is inevitable that the electorate, 88 percent of whom turned out to vote on September 7, will feel dejected, disheartened, and angry. Chief among them will be the 95,000 people who voted for Nasheed and against the coup and the authoritarian reversal. They will pour out onto the streets, just like the thousands who did on the streets of Male’ on February 8. If this happens, the final phase of Plan B will be implemented: rogue elements within the security forces led by coup-makers will crackdown on them brutally, violently, and without conscience. And with their batons and their bullets, they will try to kill all hopes of restoring democracy in the Maldives in any foreseeable future.

But, as Mohamed Nasheed said earlier this week, it is unlikely that Maldivians will let democracy die, having fought so long and come this far.

“People might try to rig two or three elections. [They] might try to arrest some people. And there might even be three or four coup d’etats. But, overall, I don’t see this curve slumping too much.”

The fight in which most of the country joined in 10 years ago from today is set to continue, for as long as it takes.

Dr Azra Naseem has a PhD in international relations

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

(1)Dislikes

(0)

Jumhooree Party to call on Supreme Court to annul first round results

The Jumhoree Party (JP) has declared that it intends to ask the Supreme Court to annul the results of last week’s presidential election, in which it narrowly missing placing in the run-off vote scheduled for September 28.

The JP’s presidential candidate Gasim Ibrahim, who placed third 24.07 percent of the vote, last week announced that he believed he “should have placed first“, and disputed the credibility of the results.

The Elections Commission (EC) has dismissed the allegations, pointing to near unanimous agreement among local and international election observers that the elections were free, fair and credible, and that the minor issues noted would not have had an impact on the final results.

However JP Policy Secretary Mohamed Ajmal told Minivan News the party would attempt to prove via the courts that the first round had been “rigged”.

As part of these efforts, he said that the JP would be submitting a “motion” to the Supreme Court on Sunday September 15 seeking to annul the vote, alleging discrepancies and irregularities during polling.

The party has already filed a case at the High Court – on the second attempt, after the first case was rejected – demanding the release of the ballot papers.

“We believe the High Court is delaying this process, and this is something we do not want to see,” Ajmal said, alleging this was in violation of “national regulations”.

Ajmal said the motion would give a “high priority” to its grievances, with the second round of voting just two weeks away.

Gasim and the Supreme Court

Until July 2013 and his official acceptance as a presidential candidate, Gasim was a member of the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) – the watchdog body tasked with appointing and disciplining the judiciary, including the Supreme Court.

Earlier that same month he declared that a leaked video depicting Supreme Court Judge Ali Hameed fornicating with an unidentified foreign woman in a Colombo hotel room was “a fake”.

Days later, two more videos of the judge engaging in sexual relations with foreign women were leaked on social media.

According to Maldivian law, the crime of fornication is subject to 100 lashes and banishment or house arrest for a period of eight months, a sentence regularly and overwhelmingly given to women found guilty of extramarital sex.

A fourth video showed the judge in conversation with a local businessman discussing the politicisation of the judiciary.

Gasim however voted against the recommendation of the JSC’s own subcommittee that Hameed be suspended pending further investigation. The judge remains on the bench.

He claims feuds between politicians were being settled through the court even though these did not involve the law or any legal issues.

Reactions

The Maldivian Democracy Network (MDN) has expressed concern at the way the results of the September 7 elections have been received by “some parties”, urging them “to act in the spirit of democracy and fair play by seeking solutions to grievances through due process and recourse to lawful means.”

“The principles of democracy prohibit threats, intimidation and harassment of each other and such behaviour has no place in a civilised society. MDN further expects that the judiciary will attend to elections-related petitions independently, efficiently and without discrimination,” the NGO stated.

President Mohamed Waheed, who received 5.13 percent of the vote in the first round and today announced that he would be supporting PPM candidate Abdulla Yameen in the run-off, declared that some allegations regarding the election were “worryingly serious”.

“I think it is paramount that these allegations be addressed within the designated legal framework, and justice be served,” President Waheed said in a statement reported by local media.

Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) Spokesperson MP Hamid Abdul Ghafoor noted the irony that the country’s prior “culture of corruption, vote rigging, and coup d’etat” had been led by the same individuals who were now contesting the legitimacy of the election results.

“These are the same people who lobbied the Supreme Court to get more direct powers for the police and security forces, and thereby a controlling stake in the elections process,” he said.

“It would be unimaginable for the courts to rule against something that the international observers have endorsed. If they agree to a recount that would be going against the international community,” Ghafoor said.

Elections Commission Fuwad Thowfeek has emphatically dismissed the JP’s allegations of rampant vote-rigging, pointing to the commission’s transparency, ongoing complaints investigations, and praise from a broad spectrum of election observers.

“The allegations by the Jumhoree Party are wasting our time actually. They don’t understand democracy or how to accept defeat, it’s a very unfortunate thing,” EC Chair Fuwad Thowfeek told Minivan News last week.

“People who cannot accept defeat should not face an election,” he continued. “It’s a contest so there’s a chance they will win or lose. In this case there were four contestants and only two could advance to the second round. Gasim Ibrahim doesn’t understand [this] and his followers are making a fool out of him,” he contended.

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

Q&A: Former President Mohamed Nasheed

Former President and Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) presidential candidate Mohamed Nasheed is signing 1400 letters an hour in an attempt to mail a personalised letter to every single one of the Maldives’ 239,593 voters before Saturday’s election.

“He insisted on signing each one personally,” sighed a party official.

Nasheed continued this feat during a series of ‘one on one’ interviews with local and international media on Wednesday afternoon.

JJ Robinson: What’s with the letters?

Mohamed Nasheed: Our whole campaign has been very personal. I’m trying to reach out to the normal Maldives person. I’ve met them, I’ve touched them, I’ve visited their homes, and finally I want to write them a letter. When I’m signing them, I’m looking at the homes. I know who I am signing it to. I like that. I don’t think a printed version is appropriate.

I think the whole democratic idea is built on very Roman principles: individuals getting together and talking about things. When you go into mass media and mass organisation you lose the sense of doing something for a person. I think in good politics you do things for individuals.

JJR: The last time you came to power you were magnanimous in victory. You’ve since said this was a romantic idea that did not work in practice. How will you approach it this time if elected?

MN: I don’t think I can change overnight. I’ll still be the same person. I think it’s not viciousness that will bring justice. It is a process. We must strengthen the institutions, especially the Judicial Services Commission (JSC), the judiciary, especially the institutions associated with rule of law. We must increase their capacity to do things and reform them.

I would not come between any investigation of suspected wrongdoing. I think the main perpetrators must be brought to justice. Then again, it is very difficult to do these things to your political opponents. You are always mindful that if you stultify your position, that is not a good recipe for a vibrant democratic society.

Now it is getting very obvious that these opposing parties will come out with new leadership after these elections. I hope that the wrong-doers are brought to justice.

JJR: Given the immediate state of the police and judiciary, how do you propose such an investigation would be conducted?

MN: Well I’ve written to all the policemen and MNDF personally. The vast majority of them seem to believe that the coup was very, very wrong, and that their institutions got a very bad name out of it and they need to salvage their [institutions].

I feel there are enough people within these institutions who are of this view and want to investigate the wrongdoing. Previously when we were in government there was nobody [in the police or military] who wanted to reform this vigorously. But if you look at the top brass of the police, they may be out now, but I don’t think they should be outside. We will bring them in. I think they are very clear in their minds about what needs to be done.

JJR: Observers are asking how, even if you do return to power and given how swiftly your government fell on February 7, you propose preventing that from happening again?

MN: One thing is – the international community should not so be so naive or short-sighted. Please don’t fund coups. Please don’t encourage forceful change of government.

What we saw was a lot of evidence that the UN was busy at it. Instability comes because outsiders side with one faction or another. Just don’t do that.

JJR: What do you mean when you say the UN was ‘busy at it’?

MN: The [now reassigned] UN Resident Coordinator’s safety address in case of an issue on February 7 was the Vice President’s residence. I was shocked to learn that.

I felt the UN specifically wanted to recognise the new regime instead of conducting a proper investigation. They dragged the investigation out until they could cover it up. From the evidence we saw afterwards, especially from the government accountability committee in parliament, it is obvious it was a coup, and it is obvious that anyone should have seen it as a coup.

We should have gone for an early election instantly. We should not legitimise any forceful transfer of power. Right now the situation is that everyone believes ‘winner takes all’. [The impression is that] if you are the ruler, the UN and international community won’t give two thoughts about that and simply recognise whoever is holding power. That kind of attitude doesn’t help.

JJR: If you had the whole February 7 period again, on reflection is there anything you would have done differently?

MN: On the 7th? No. If you’re specifically talking about that day, no. In the lead up to it, yes. We have learned a lot of lessons from what led to this, the political nature of the police and military, and elements of the international community taking sides.

JJR: Many MDP supporters privately profess a sense of doom should you not win. Are the stakes really that high, and what sort of challenges do you think you would have in opposition?

MN: There is no doubt [we will not not win]. Not even entertaining that thought.

JJR: Given the high stakes then, what kind of concerns then do you have for the transition period of nearly two months?

MN: About a month back I had some concerns. But now I think there is enough inertia among the people so that this can be brought into proper alignment. There’s not a lot [the government] could do. I don’t see the military being able to do anything. There is enough support for us within the military, there is enough support for us within the police, it’s just the top brass [of concern], and they won’t have support among the rank and file. So we are fairly confident.

JJR: A lot of young Maldivians, particularly those aged between 18-25, those perhaps without direct experience of Gayoom’s rule in the 80s and 90s, give the impression of being politically apathetic. What kind of message would you give to these politically disengaged?

MN: Get involved. If you are not involved, you better not complain.

This is a multi-party participatory democracy, and there is room for everyone to make their views heard and get involved. I’m very encouraged that during these elections the bulk of the MDP’s campaign machinery has been run by young people. There’s a lot of people who are very involved.

Very often when your own personal viewpoint does not have resonance, you tend to become apathetic. It is not that you are politically apathetic, just that you sense that your viewpoint is not represented, so you go home.

We suggest – don’t do that. Come to us. We have room, and your voice is very, very necessary. And we need it.

JJR: Given that your government’s detention of the Criminal Court judge and efforts toward judicial reform were used to justify the protests in the lead up to February 7, how can you reform the judiciary from the position of the executive without risking this happening again, or without compromising the integrity of the three arms of state?

MN: We must reform the JSC. The police must have enough leverage to investigate wrongdoing. The police were aware of the brewing coup but were not able to investigate it. The Criminal Court was always obstructing that investigation. Primarily that was why the police felt that Abdulla Mohamed was a threat to national security.

In hindsight it was easy to understand why police were saying that, because left alone they felt there would be a coup. If the investigation was not done, and if these people were not apprehended, then police felt there would be a military coup. That is why they wanted to restrain certain elements.

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

Maldives Decides 2013

Click to visit Maldives Decides 2013

Minivan News has launched ‘Maldives Decides 2013’, a hub of content concerning the four candidates competing in the 2013 presidential election.

Each candidate’s entry includes an overview of their recent political history with extensive links to relevant articles published by Minivan News, an overview of their policy positions, and a brief analysis of their support base.

The hub also includes an unofficial poll, links to Minivan News’ ongoing election coverage, and resources provided by the Maldives Elections Commission.

Additionally, all candidates have been sent and invited to respond to the following 10 questions, which will be published unedited as received:

What about your personal experience makes you suitable to become President?
What are the top three challenges facing the Maldives, and how do you intend to address these?
Given the present state of the economy, how are you going to get the money to fulfill your pledges?
Is there a need for judicial reform, and how do you intend to address the state of the judiciary should you be elected?
How do you expect the events of 7 February 2012 to affect voter sentiment at the ballot box?
Is Islamic fundamentalism a growing concern in the Maldives, and how should the government respond?
What role should the international community play in the Maldives?
Why should a woman vote for your party in the election?
Why should a young person vote for your party in the election?
What will the Maldives be like in 10 years time, should you be elected in September?

Minivan News hopes ‘Maldives Decides 2013’ is of value to its readers, and looks forward to a free, fair and inclusive election on September 7.

Visit Maldives Decides 2013

Feel free to discuss this project below, or send enquiries directly to [email protected]

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

India needs Nasheed win in September: First Post

India may pat itself on the back as former President of Maldives Mohammed Nasheed has been confirmed as a candidate in the 7 September presidential elections by the Election Commission of Maldives, writes Rajeev Sharma for First Post.

Nasheed came calling in New Delhi this week on a two-pronged mission: (i) to thank his Indian friends without whose support he won’t have made it to the Presidential race; and (ii) to once again sensitise his Indian interlocutors to prevent “many a slip between the cup and the lip” kind of situation in his case.

Let’s be clear about Nasheed’s India mission.

He was here primarily centered on the ‘take’ part as he is not in a position to ‘give’ anything to India. His ‘give’ quotient, however, should not be underestimated as the first concrete deliverable he can give to India, particularly to the poll-bound UPA government, is to reverse the executive decision of the Maldives government to terminate the US$500 million GMR contract for the development and upgrade of the Male International Airport, the single largest Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) Maldives ever got.

The GMR deal continues to be the single biggest obsession for the Congress-led UPA government, which if reversed, will inevitably yield the necessary electoral fire-power to the present Indian government. Such a development will allow the UPA government to tell the foreign policy-savvy electorate (though a small number) that Maldives is not lost to India!

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

Comment: Maldives preparing for presidential polls

Come September the Maldives will be having the second multi-party elections for the nation’s presidency.

Only recently, incumbent President Mohammed Waheed Hassan Manik said the 2008 Constitution has provided for a presidential form of government under a parliamentary scheme, and the nation is facing the consequences. Waheed did not say if it included the controversial circumstances revolving around his own ascendancy to power when he was Vice-President to Mohamed Nasheed, the first President elected under the multi-party scheme.

President Waheed and his government and coalition partners have had their way that the polls for the nation’s highest office would not be advanced as sought by Nasheed’s Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP). Yet, issues surrounding President Nasheed’s resignation of 7 February 2012 refuse to die down. The MDP itself may be paying a price for that in electoral terms, exactly 19 months after the ‘power-transfer’.

Candidate Nasheed is the issue thus in the upcoming elections. His three opponents readily concede as much. They also concede that the MDP is the single-largest vote-getter among them. The Election Commission has for months now acknowledged that MDP is the single largest political party in the country with the highest number of registered members.

The second in the line, the Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM), comes a distant second with less than half the MDP’s figures. Third is the Dhivehi Raayathunge Party (DRP). Both parties were founded by President Nasheed’s predecessor, Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, and together, their membership comes closer to the MDP membership.

Of memberships and votes

Yet, questions remain if the DRP will be able to translate its membership into votes, or if there will be a substantial migration towards the PPM camp. Should that happen, and should Waheed’s administration attract a substantial share from an anticipated high percentage of non-committed voters, as candidate Nasheed had calculated in 2008, the team may be in some reckoning.

DRP leader Thasmeen Ali gets to be the running-mate of President Waheed. Thasmeen may hold that record for a time, as he was similarly the running-mate of incumbent President Gayoom the last time round.

Apart from Nasheed and President Waheed, the poll involves PPM’s Abdulla Yameen, half-brother of former President Gayoom. Also in the race is Jumhoree Party (JP) leader, Gasim Ibrahim, with his vice-presidential running-mate, Dr Hassan Saeed. It is pertinent to recall that in the first multi-party presidential polls of 2008, contesting alone, Gasim Ibrahim and Hassan Saeed polled a total of 34 percent vote-share, second only to incumbent President Gayoom’s 40 percent.

Yet, under a system in which the first two contest the second run-off round if none poll over 50 percent votes in the first round, Nasheed with his stand-alone 25 percent first-round vote-share challenged Gayoom in the run-off in 2008.

Gasim and Saeed joined hands with him. Nasheed won. The final poll figures stood testimony to the effective transfer of their first round votes (Saeed: 16-plus percent, Gasmim: 15-plus percent) to Nasheed.

The question is if Saeed with his Dhivehi Quamee Party (DQP) have enough votes in the first place left with him, and also has enough ‘transferrable votes’, which JP’s Gasim alone seems to be enjoying in the country at the moment.

That leaves Yameen with his running-mate Dr Mohammed Jameel Ahmed, who was Home Minister in the Waheed government, sacked after crossing over from Saeed’s DQP. Saeed himself would later leave the government as Special Advisor to President Waheed, to join hands with Gasim, whose JP technically is still a partner in the non-MDP, anti-Nasheed administration, along with the PPM.

Having launched his campaign late, and amidst controversy attending on the PPM primary for selecting the party nominee for the presidential polls, Yameen relies on the better organisational structure of the party, the recognisable face and leadership of Gayoom.

In doing so, he however will have to face charges of ‘family rule’ within the party, which thankfully none of his political rivals are ready to flag in any specific and substantive way.

Realignment for run-off?

The issue is Nasheed, and his post-resignation polarising call, seeking to revive the past political fight for ushering in multi-party democracy in the country. It remains to be seen if excessive reference to, and reliance on the same as a campaign platform and tool over the past months since his leaving power can still help focus the limelight on the futuristic issues and constituency-based campaign manifestos that the MDP and Nasheed have painstakingly prepared and pointedly present to the voter.

For Nasheed to win the first round, he will require those additional votes, from new constituencies, or constituencies that were impressed by his socio-economic measures during the short-lived first term, and would hence like to give him a second chance.

Should the elections run into the second round, it could then become a wide-open race. If nothing else, the temptation is to constantly refer to the 2008 experience, in terms of form and content. There could be realignment, the contours of which remain to be explored and exploited in full.

The MDP has called upon the 240,000 voters of the country to hand down a decisive first-round victory in the first round to Nasheed, for the party and the leader to give a stable government and carry forward democratic and socio-economic reforms that they claim have been initiated during his ‘aborted’ first term.

It is also an acknowledgement of the ground reality, where the MDP cannot find coalition partners among the rest to work with the Nasheed leadership. His running-mate in former Education Minister and first Chancellor of the National University, Dr Mustafa Luthfy, along with the recent entry of Parliament Speaker Abdulla Shahid to the MDP fold after being elected MP under a DRP ticket, is expected to bring votes that Nasheed may need for a first-round win.

President Waheed has created history too. With the total membership of his Gaumee Iththihad Party (GIP) under the scanner, and the present law on 10,000 members for party registration under judicial review, he chose to contest as an ‘Independent’, though his DRP partner is a registered party.

He went around acquiring the signatures of 1500 registered voters for endorsing his nomination, an alternative requirement under the law. Tension remained in the Waheed camp until Election Commission officials had cleared all signatories as genuine voters, sitting through the night on the verification work.

Waheed’s poll call would be ‘stability in an unmanageable coalition set-up’, which it was. Today, every government party is contesting the presidential polls separately and against one another – apart from contesting against the MDP, the only party that is not a coalition partner. They have voted for and against government motions in Parliament, and run down one another, too. Only recently did they join hands to vote against ‘secret ballot’ on non-trust votes against the President, Vice-President and Government Ministers in the house.

Yet, some of them, particularly the PPM and DRP, have voted with the MDP opposition, to deny ministerial jobs to some nominees of President Waheed’s choice.

Yameen seems to resting on past laurels, many of which readily sit on the shoulders of President Gayoom. The PPM calls his rule the ‘golden age’, and positions Yameen’s candidacy as a return to that era.

Yameen, as may be recalled, is representing a party and leadership that converted a poor, ignorant and ignored nation to one with the highest per capita GDP in South Asia, through 30 years of rule that also gave Maldivians modern education and limited medical care, non-existent earlier.

‘Limited’ or ‘non-existent’ democracy as known to the West was the bane of generations and centuries. Gayoom’s presidency was satisfied with incremental changes to the scheme, when the younger generations in particular may have already been craving for wholesale changes.

If he was a lone fighter the last time round, JP’s Gasim has put together a ‘rainbow coalition’ this time. Apart from Hassan Saeed’s DQP, he has also successfully negotiated a partnership with the religion-centric Adhaalath Party (AP). As may be recalled, the vociferous and conservative leadership of the AP played a major role in mobilising the ‘December 23 movement’ that ultimately brought about their intended change of power without ballot in February 2012.

Missing reciprocity

With its conservative religious approach in a moderate Islamic nation, the AP is otherwise seen as a controversial political player. Their crossing over from the Waheed camp too close to the nominations date for the presidential polls caused eyebrows to rise.

Yet, by bringing together disparate groups that are otherwise desperate, Gasim may have ensured a political combination that could see him through to the local government elections in December this year, and parliamentary polls that are due by May next year.

For now, PPM’s Yameen has publicly declared his intention to work with Gasim in the second round polls (hoping that it would go in for a run-off). This may have also owed to the over-worked rumour-mill that put the PPM and MDP on the same side of the political divide should there be no clear verdict in the first round.

Gasim himself has not reciprocated positively, nor even responded to Yameen’s indicative support in anyway. Maybe he is keeping his options open. Maybe he has coalition compulsions that could flow on into the second round – if there is a second round.

The factors are varied, and so are the projected strengths and perceived weaknesses of the four tickets. There is then the question of 30,000 first-time voters, who unlike their preceding generation in 2008, seem unsure of themselves after the ‘democratic developments’ of the past year. Though they may not have begun focusing on it exclusively, at some point in the coming weeks contesting camps may have to do more to attract additional voters to the booth than may otherwise turn out to be.

In 2008 most, if not all first-time voters, and most of the total 40-plus per cent ‘young electors’ were believed to have voted for change. There was also an urge and consequent surge for participating in the historic event of their generation, from all sides. Thus the presidential election in 2008 witnessed a high 85-plus percent turnout in the first round and a higher 86-plus percent polling in the second round.

This time, too, voter turnout will have a say in the final outcome, starting with the fact if the polls would go into the second round – and more so, on who will get to rule Maldives for the next five years – and hopefully so!

The writer is a Senior Fellow at the Observer Research Foundation

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)