Tag: Politics

Comment: State-sponsored fundamentalism and lack of freedom of speech to blame for violence, not protests

Dear Dr Hassan Saeed,

I would like to express the following comments in response to your letter in The Guardian today, ‘Violent protests in the Maldives’.

Rather than suggesting that the recent increase of violent behaviour in the Maldives is a direct result of MDP protests, it would seem more obviously related to the state-sponsored fundamentalism and lack of freedom of speech which has been endemic over the last few months.

This has engendered an increasingly intolerant attitude in Maldivian society, silencing scholars promoting a moderate, progressive version of Islam and spawning hate-mongering through threatening videos and websites etc.

With regard to your assertion that Mr Nasheed is being ‘investigated’ by your ‘completely independent’ judicial system, the fact is that he has been investigated by the police, who can not be independent of the government, since they take their orders from the Minister of Home Affairs.

Furthermore, Mr Nasheed is being treated differently from other people by the courts, for example, prioritising his case, whilst there are 2000 criminal cases, including murder, child abuse and rape, pending for years in the criminal courts. Most of the accused in these cases are at liberty.

Lastly, whilst you ask that Amnesty International report alleged abuses to the Human Rights Commission and the Police Integrity Commission, the recommendations of these institutions are not meaningfully considered by your government.

The policeman Mr Ali Ahmed was found in violation of law by the Police Integrity Commission on charges of abuse and criminal assault and it was recommended that he be dismissed. However, your Home Minister decided to reward him by giving him a promotion. When the Prosecutor General filed charges against him, the ‘independent judiciary’ dismissed the charges on procedural grounds.

The future of democracy must be based on freedom of speech and respect for human rights, as outlined in the celebrity letter.

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)

Membership of PPM increases to 17,533, other parties face decreases

The statistics revealed by the Elections Commission (EC) show that the number of members registered for all major political parties have decreased apart from the Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) headed by President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, which has increased its membership base  to 17,533.

The Elections Commission reported political party membership fluctuations over a two week period from September 9.

During this period, 130 new members joined PPM within the 14 days, while the largest party – the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) – lost 49 members.

The MDP had 48,516 members at the start of the period, decreasing to 48,483 on September 16, and to 48,467 by Sunday.

Meanwhile PPM had 17,403 members registered at the commission on  September 9 which had dropped 19 to 17,384 by September 16, but had increased its membership to 17,533 by Sunday.

The second largest political party in the Maldives, the Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) led by MP Ahmed Thasmeen Ali, had 27,065 members registered at the commission as of September 9. However according to the statistics, during last week 87 members registered at the commission had left DRP.

The religious Adhaalath Party led by Sheikh Imran Abdulla had 5804 members registered at the Elections Commission as of September 9 but the number subsequently increased to 5828. Statistics showed that 24 new members joined the Adhaalath Party in the two weeks after September 9.

The Jumhoree Party (JP) led by MP ‘Burma’ Gasim Ibrahim had 6321 members registered at the Elections Commission as of September 9. According to the statistics 83 new members were registered by September 16.

The Gaumy Ithihaadh Party (GIP) founded by the current President Dr Waheed Hassan Manik had 2513 members registered as of September 9, dropping to 2508 by the end of the reporting period.

The Dhivehi Qaumy Party (DQP) led by Waheed’s Special Advisor Dr Hassan Saeed meanwhile decreased by six members to 2206 by the end of the two weeks..

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Court orders former President Nasheed confined to Male

The Hulhumale Magistrate Court has ordered that former President Mohamed Nasheed be confined to Male’, ahead of a court case concerning his detention of Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed while in office.

“It’s a notice to the accused issued by the Hulhumale’ court and restricts his movements to Male’ City. The notice says he can only travel out of Male’ City with the prior permission of the Hulhumale’ Court,” said Chairperson of Nasheed’s Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP), Mariya Ahmed Didi.

Meanwhile, Nasheed was also summoned to the Civil Court on October 2 accused of defamation, for allegedly calling Defence Minister Mohamed Nazim a “traitor”. Police Commissioner Abdulla Riyaz has filed a similar case.

The restriction on Nasheed’s movements comes days before the party is due to begin its election campaign in the southern atolls, and days after Nasheed’s return from the UK where he met Foreign Secretary William Hague and spoke at the Royal Commonwealth Society.

“This is very serious for us as a party, because we have a huge campaign coming up in the south, from October 1-13,” explained the party’s spokesperson, Hamid Abdul Ghafoor, observing that a third of the party’s MPs also faced court action.

“We plan to visit most of the islands in the southern two provinces, and it’s all been scheduled. This all looks very ‘Myanmar’ – using the courts and administrative manipulation to restrict political party activity. At a time when President Waheed is lobbying the Commonwealth to remove the Maldives from its human rights watch-list, his regime has detained the leader of the opposition.”

President’s Office Media Secretary Masood Imad told Reuters that the ruling was a judicial matter and that the government would not interfere.

However Ghafoor contended that while “Waheed likes to hide behind the fig leaf of judicial independence, the UN Human Rights Council, Amnesty International and other NGOs have highlighted that the judiciary is bias and effectively controlled by elements in the regime.”

The Department of Judicial Administration has meanwhile told local media that the travel ban was routine for defendents in upcoming court cases.

“It is standard procedure followed by all courts to necessitate those accused in a case to obtain permission from the relevant court to leave the country under Article 23 and 24 of the Court regulation,” a court official told Haveeru.

Nasheed, together with former Chief of Defense Forces Moosa Ali Jaleel, retired Brigadier-General Ibrahim Mohamed Didi and Colonel Mohamed Ziyad, are accused of illegally detaining Chief Criminal Court Judge Abdulla Mohamed during Nasheed’s final days in office.

Nasheed’s government accused the judge of political bias, obstructing police, stalling cases, having links with organised crime and “taking the entire criminal justice system in his fist” so as to protect key figures of the former dictatorship from human rights and corruption cases.

Nasheed justified the judge’s arrest based on his constitutional mandate to protect the constitution, after the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) complied with an injunction from the civil court preventing further investigation of the judge for ethical misconduct, and the failure of Parliament’s Independent Commissions Committee to hold the judicial watchdog accountable.
The then-opposition began nightly protests over the matter, while the government sought assistance from the UN and Commonwealth for urgent judicial reform. However Nasheed resigned on February 7 amid a police and military mutiny the day after the Commonwealth team arrived.

General Didi, who was serving as the Male’ area commander at the time of Judge Abdulla’s arrest, penned his “premature” resignation” after 32 years of service in the military upon the Prosecutor decision to prosecute him.

Ex-Chief of Defence Force Jaleel had also retired following the controversial transfer of power on February 7, while Colonel Ziyad has maintained he would be present in his uniform to defend himself in the court.

The case was sent to Hulhumale Court rather than the Criminal Court in Male’ due to apparent concerns over a conflict of interest, however it was initially rejected by the court on the courts it did not have the jurisdiction to hear the case.

The court was obliged to accept the case on resubmission by the Prosecutor General after a High Court appeal. Despite the case being sent to Hulhumale, the trial is to be held in the Justice Building in Male’.

Nasheed has specifically been charged with violating Article 81 of the Penal Code, which states that the detention of a government employee who has not been found guilty of a crime is illegal.

If found guilty, Nasheed will face a jail sentence or banishment for three years or a Rf 3000 (US$193.5) fine, a sentence that would bar him from contesting the elections.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Unrest rising with no reconciliation in sight: Eurasia Review

In the current tense situation prevailing in Male, one would have expected President Waheed to make the initial move towards reconciliation during the national day address last week on the 47th year of independence. It was not to be, writes Dr S Chandrasekharan for the Eurasia Review.

In his speech President Waheed appealed to the people to offer full cooperation to the State’s relentless peace efforts while maintaining high regard for the country’s laws and legislature. While highlighting the need to safeguard the religion, consolidating the military forces and further unifying people, a conciliatory gesture on his part would have gone a long way in defusing the current tensions.

On the other hand his position is seen to have hardened. On 17th July he said that he ( he meant his party) will not participate in the All Party talks while the MDP continues to going back to street protests in Male. Earlier the President’s spokesperson condemned the MDP protests as “acts of terrorism.”

President’s Adviser Dr. Saeed who holds a very important post and who is expected to show some restraint declared very categorically that there is no benefit in continuing the “All Party Talks” and does not believe that Nasheed’s participation would reap any benefit!

Earlier the chairman of the All party talks- Ahmed Mujuthaba announced that 16 previous attempts at talks among the top political leaders had not resulted in any breakthrough! It looks that the talks have been given a decent burial. So much for the Indian initiative!

In the last few days, over 200 protestors have been arrested and this included many MDP MPs and even a former cabinet minister. Many of those released after arrests have been ordered to remain indoors in the evening and the night till the next morning! Quite a strange order!

Not all the protests have been peaceful either. In many instances the protestors are seen to have broken the barricades and rushed towards the security forces. The security forces have also been subjected to verbal and filthy abuses.

The Police are also seen to be using “pepper spray” indiscriminately. There is a video footage doing the rounds showing the security forces aiming the spray at Nasheed! The government has publicised the statements of the bodyguards provided by the government from the forces that they did not see any spray being aimed at Nasheed. They have to say this if they are to keep their jobs!

With the government pushing for prosecution of Nasheed, the latter has called on all the population to be present at the trial to witness what happens in the court while alleging that he whole case is being politically motivated.

The MDP has already declared that it will not participate in an election where its presidential candidate ( here Nasheed) is prevented from contesting.

An unfortunate incident of a killing of a lance corporal of Maldivian police by a criminal while he was being arrested is being given a political twist by none other than the Home minister himself that the MDP protests and abuse of Police by the demonstrators have led to the killing!

UK Foreign Office Spokesman Alistair Burt made a very balanced statement. He said -” I call on all sides to show restraint in the interest of achieving a sustainable political solution to Maldives’ recent problem. Protests must be peaceful and security forces’ response should be professional and proportionate. Violence and any cases of excessive use of force should be investigated and those responsible held to account.”

The Special Envoy of the Commonwealth made a similar call for restraint. He expressed his concern at ‘rising political tension’ in Maldives and specifically over the ongoing protests and criminal charges filed against Nasheed. He called for dialogue among political parties urging all parties to show restraint and restore calm.

The European Union made a similar observation. Their High Representative said – continued political unrest, heavy-handed response of security forces and charges filed against political leaders will only lead to further deterioration of the political climate of the country and will adversely affect the lives of all Maldivian citizens.

India on its part has also called for restraint and dialogue. These appear to have fallen on deaf ears of both sides.

Read more

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Comment: Burial of the truth

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

Last Sunday night Lance Corporal Adam Haleem was stabbed to death on the island of Kaashidhoo. He was en route to duty and in full uniform. He died from multiple stab wounds just after midnight. He was 26 years old, and the father of a son not yet a year old.

Before the young policeman’s body was cold, his death had become a political opportunity for many. Politicisation of life and death is not a new phenomenon in the Maldives. It was on the rise before the change of government on 7 February. But the extent to which the current ‘Unity Government’ of Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan Manik is going, to squeeze every drop of political juice from the death of Lance Corporal Hameed, is a revolting spectacle to behold.

It was Dr Waheed himself who set the ball rolling.

What was this about hate-mongering? What did he mean? Was the policeman’s murder linked to the current political unrest? That was certainly the inference, as he reiterated shortly after:

One of the first political figures to put into words what Waheed insinuated was MP for Kaashidhoo area Abdulla Jabir. He told the Sun within an hour of the news breaking:

[I] condemn this murder in strictest words. It is sad that such incidents are increasing. The reason for this is the continued actions by MDP [Maldivian Democratic Party] to spread lies about the police and create anger against them among the people.

Sun also reported that ‘Private MP’ Ahmed Mahloof (PPM), less than two hours after the news broke, said:

What we have seen tonight is the democracy that MDP talks about. The democracy we have seen is the one which calls to attack the police. I condemn this. Nasheed and MDP must take responsibility for this.

Several others were jostling for space on the bandwagon. Home Minister Mohamed Jameel Ahmed said this:

Here are some significant others.

Human Rights Commissioner Mariyam Azra, too, appeared convinced that what the Unity Government and its supporters were saying was indeed true. Within the hour she had this to say:

Very sad that a policeman has been killed like this. Nobody should speak in ways that incite hatred against another.

Politics of death

The death of a policeman—especially when hostilities between anti-government protesters and the security forces are at an all time high—is a potent event, laden with political consequences. For the Unity Government it became the ‘evidence’ with which to prove a ‘truth’ they have been peddling from the beginning: MDP is a violent political group determined to regain power at any cost.

This strategy for criminalising dissent and constructing all supporters of MDP as ‘terrorists’ who are also the cause of all the social unrest of today, has been at the forefront of this government’s efforts to legitimise itself since day one.

The government was helped in its campaign to exploit the young policeman’s death by the police themselves. Lance Corporal Haleem died at around quarter past midnight on Sunday night. Between then and mid-afternoon Monday—despite being in possession of all facts surrounding the murder—the police did not make public any details surrounding it. The only thing said was ‘a policeman has been murdered,’ and where.

This left a long Speculation Window in which the Unity Government could air as fact its message that Lance Corporal Haleem had been murdered by an MDP thug, driven to it by calls for violence against the police by MDP leaders.

During the midnight hours, knowing that most people stay up late during Ramadan, key figures in the Unity Government saturated the media with the message. Jumhooree Party (JP) leader Gasim Ibrahim appeared on his Villa TV with Kaashidhoo MP Jabir and JP’s President Dr Didi to discuss ‘the problem of MDP’s continuous incitment of violence against the police.’

They intertwined news of the policeman’s death with the narrative of ‘MDP violence against the police’ so often and with such conviction that by the time the police finally revealed more facts, most people—except the accused—were convinced MDP was behind the policeman’s murder. Here’s a tweet that encapsulates the sentiments of government supporters the following day.

Dissemination of the message did not stop at the country’s borders. In fact, when spread to the international community, the Unity Government didn’t bother with the insinuations. It just came straight out and pointed the figure at MDP. Before Monday morning, the President’s Office Spokesperson, Masood Imad, had told the AFP in Colombo:

The MDP instigated the attack on policemen at Kaashidoo and one was stabbed to death.

Here’s how a Sri Lankan newspaper ran the story the next morning:

Whither the truth?

The truth of the matter, when details began to come out on Monday, was very different. Lance Corporal Haleem was killed by a criminal he had investigated for about a year, and was about to arrest.

The murder was straightforward, and Mohamed Samah, the 22-year-old culprit from the same island, was arrested at the scene. There was an eye-witness and several people, including the police, were on the scene within seconds.

The subsequent scramble to pinpoint the political party to which the accused belonged was ugly. And it was a malaise that affected not just the Unity Government but the general population in its majority. It was as if the violent death of a young man would only begin to matter once the murderer’s political affiliation was established.

His connections with various key figures in different political parties were discussed; his identity card number was keyed into the Elections Commissions website; his membership of one party thus established without doubt—only for that party to come out and say: “There are many MDP members who signed up to other parties by mistake.” Seriously. In a ‘functioning democracy’, as Dr Waheed describes the Maldives, the facts of Lance Corporal Haleem’s death would have required a formal retraction. And, at the very least, it would have elicited an apology to the MDP for very serious wrongful accusations made against it.

But that is not what happened, for it was not Lance Corporal Haleem’s death that was important but the concurrent narrative of MDP’s violence that it was used to construct. Under the circumstances, truth was irrelevant. Thus the political abuse of Lance Corporal Haleem’s body continued apace.

After the condemnations came the heavily publicised State funeral. Of course, the fallen must be honoured. Policemen put their lives at risk protecting society, and we should appreciate that, especially so when they die on duty.

But was the public spectacle put on by the Unity Government and Maldives Police Service really necessary? It is not part of Maldivian culture to hold ostentatious, loud, photographed and televised funerals.

We are humble and simple in our bereavement. But, pictures of Lance Corporal Haleem’s coffin being carried to Islamic Centre on the shoulders of sombre looking policeman were splashed across the media. As were pictures of various key Unity Government figures consoling the family, looking appropriately grieved, and even praying. Faith, like death, reduced to a photo opportunity.

In a slight digression: I could not help but notice Lance Corporal Haleem’s distraught mother photographed at the burial ground paying her respects. I know several mothers, wives, daughters and sisters (myself included) who have desperately wanted it to be otherwise. But it has always been maintained that a woman cannot partake in the burial. What was it about this occasion that allowed the bending of a seemingly inflexible Islamic rule?

Retaliation against the wrongfully accused

As the day passed, the rhetoric of MDP’s violence against the police was only ratcheted up, not lowered. Now the Unity Government’s efforts were on making people forget the truth.

It seems as if the fact of Lance Corporal Haleem’s death has been buried with him. What remained of concern was the accompanying narrative – MDP is deliberately inciting violence against the police and must be stopped.

Thus the Maldives Police Service began ‘retaliation’ against MDP for a crime it had nothing to do with. Chief among several actions taken to avenge Lance Corporal Haleem’s murder was the ’leaking’ of a telephone conversation between Nasheed and MDP Mariya Didi, one of his closest allies and friends. In the March 29 conversation, Mariya is heard updating Nasheed about police violence and use of pepper-spray against protesters resisting their dismantling of Usfasgan’du [MDP’s protest camp] that day. She asks for Nasheed’s advice, and he replies:

There’s not much we can do. I don’t know. What is there to do? I think [we] need to get people out to fight if we can get them. If we can get people to fight, get them out. It’s very clear to me, I think we need to fight back. If we can get people to fight. Find kids from Male to fight the police.

Mariya laughs. Not the response one would expect from a person who thinks she has just been assigned the task of recruiting a gang of thugs to take on the national security forces. Regardless, the police thought it prudent to release the audio clip. For what purpose? It was certainly not aimed at calming tensions or to make real the rhetoric of reconciliation.

Nasheed’s supporters are unlikely to accept the private conversation between him and Mariya as evidence of his alleged brutality. For them, his commitment to non-violence was proven beyond doubt when not just the MDP-affiliated Coup Report but also the so-called CONI Timeline documented Nasheed’s unequivocal refusal to use weapons against the mutinying police, or anyone else, on 7 February.

The only purposes the audio clip served was to harden government supporters’ dislike and mistrust of Nasheed, and to fortify government’s efforts to construct Nasheed as the cruel leader of the violent political organisation that is said to be MDP. To support their claim that MDP leaders are all characterised by political extremists prone to violence, they have also unearthed statements made by key MDP figures encouraging—wrongly so—retaliation against the police for their brutal violence against them during the events surrounding the transfer of government.

Whether or not their words bear any relation to the murder of the policeman, once again, is of the least consequence. What it did beautifully was fit the government narrative. What use to make of the audio clip, which the police has been in possession of since March, was decided shortly after Lance Corporal Haleem’s murder and long before facts of his killing were made public. Home Minister Jameel hinted at it on the night of the murder itself:

The ‘evidence’, with the allegation, is continuing to play across the media—mainstream and social–since then.

Before they brought foreigners and shot them dead, now getting Maldivians to stab them…Bravo to the democracy Anni is bringing.

The poster with the last Tweet from President’s Spokesperson Abbas Riza reads:

6 February Massacre

Main reasons why a massacre was desired:

—to declare a state of emergency

—to abolish the JSC and give MDP the power to appoint judges

—to arrest the leaders who stepped up to defend Islam and the Constitution

—to hand MPL (Maldives Ports Limited) to a company of which India’s GMR is a shareholder

These are not the words and actions of members of a government eager to calm the political and social turmoil afflicting Maldives today. On the contrary, they are intended to cause the opposite effect.

If the Unity Government were serious about reconciliation in the five long months gone, it would have taken due action against members of the police who mutinied. It would not have given them promotions instead.

It would not have appointed as leaders of the security forces men like Mohamed Nazim, Abdulla Riyaz and Mohamed Fayaz, men who the whole country saw playing a key role in the change of government on 7 February. The seeds of public mistrust of the police were planted on that day, and on 8 February. And they grow and mushroom with every day that passes without this government’s acknowledgement of the these facts.

There can be no reconciliation without the truth.

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)

All-Party talks to resume with “high-level” meeting between President, political leaders

The Convenor of the All-Party talks, Ahmed Mujuthaba, has announced that a series of “high level” discussions will be held between President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan and the leaders of the largest political parties, to try and relieve growing political tension in the Maldives.

The talks were conceived as one of two internationally-backed mechanisms – alongside the Commission of National Inquiry (CNI) – to resolve the political deadlock in the Maldives following the controversial transfer of power on February 7.

The last round of the UN-mediated talks, held at Vice President Waheed Deen’s Bandos Island Resort and Spa in early June, collapsed after parties aligned with the government presented the ousted Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) with a list of 30 demands.

The list included calls that the MDP “stop practicing black magic and sorcery”, “stop the use of sexual and erotic tools”, and “not walk in groups of more than 10”.

Also demanded during the talks were that the MDP “not keep crows and other animals in public areas”, “not participate in protests in an intoxicated condition“, and “not defame the country both domestically and internationally”.

One MDP representative at the talks, former Tourism Minister Dr Mariyam Zulfa, said other parties involved in the talks “were adamant from the beginning that under no circumstances would there be early elections. There was a lot of rhetoric and mockery against the MDP,” she said.

“The spirit of working together was not there. It manifested in their tone – mocking and sarcastic. They gave no seriousness to the discussion of any point,” she said.

In a statement today, Mujuthaba acknowledged that the 16 hours of talks at Bandos had resulted in “no breakthrough”.

“Having considered the whole process in depth, it became apparent that a fresh approach had to be made,” he said.

“With that in mind, I held a series of constructive meetings, separately, over the past month with the President and leaders of the largest political parties to discuss the prospects of continuing the political party talks.

“They have expressed a strong and shared belief in dialogue as the best way to address the challenges facing our nation. They agree that there are deep-rooted divisions and problems that must be resolved jointly if the Maldives is to continue on its democratic path,” Mujuthaba stated.

“In these meetings I have had detailed discussions on the possibility of facilitating a meeting of the President and leaders of these large political parties. All agree in principle to the need for high-level talks. I hope to secure the commitment of these parties to convene such a meeting at the highest level in the very near future.

“In the end, the most senior political leaders will need to create an atmosphere conducive
to discussions, and come together prepared to work in good faith,” he concluded.

No date has yet been set for the next round of talks. However the Commission of National Inquiry is due to release its findings at the end of August, following a one-month delay.

The MDP have been calling for early elections in 2012, a call backed by the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG) and other international groups. However, President Waheed has insisted that July 2013 is the earliest date elections can be held.

Parties allied with the government, including the Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM) affiliated with former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, have meanwhile promised that former President Nasheed will be arrested before the 2013 elections.

“We will make sure that the Maldivian state does this,” promised PPM Deputy Leader Umar Naseer, late last month.

“We will not let him go; the leader who unlawfully ordered the police and military to kidnap a judge and detain him for 22 days will be brought to justice,” Naseer told local media.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Presidents Office establishes ‘work ethics’ code for political appointees

The President’s Office today announced it had begun implementing a work ethics code for all the political appointees except cabinet ministers.

According to the ethics code published in Dhivehi, those bound by the new ethics code are those appointed under article 115(f) of the constitution, by a letter of appointment from the president or cabinet secretary.

The ethics code dictates the code of conduct of the political appointees, their dress code, work timing and procedures for resignation.

The Section 3(c) states that all appointees ‘should’ accept and respect all policy decisions of the government.

It further includes, “Even if there happens to be a difference of opinion on such a policy, the appointee should refrain from expressing their opinions to individuals, the public and the media, and should refrain from writing about it.”

The Section 3(d) also dictates similar requirements for not expressing views that oppose the policy of the government views that are contrary to the appointee’s responsibilities.

Apart from these restrictions, section 3 also demands that all appointees must maintain government secrets both while employed and after they leave the position.

Section 7 of the ethics code states that all appointees should turn up to work before 8:30 am in the morning except during the month of Ramadan, where the start time is 9:30 am.

Similar to the civil servants, according to the section 8 of the ethics code, appointees are also entitled to a 30 day vacation after one year on the job and 10 days ’emergency’ leave, while female staff are entitled to 60 days maternity leave.

Section 9 of the ethics code demands that all the appointees must dress accordingly and should always be at their best turn out while in public.

The section specifically states that men should wear either short or long sleeve shirts with tie, trousers and shoes for men, while female appointees should be in attire that is acceptable to the government.

The President’s office stated that all the appointees must begin to follow the code from July 1, onwards.

Speaking to Minivan News, President’s Office Spokesperson Abbas Adil Riza said that the government believed that such a work ethics code was important and necessary.

“Political appointees are also paid by the state, so the government believes that there should be some regulations on the work of political appointees,” he said.

He added that there previously there was no regulation regarding the work ethics of the political appointees and that he believed that such regulation would increase the “accountability and public confidence” in the political appointees.

The ethics code is the first of such regulations that has been imposed on political appointees in the country.

The code comes at a time where the government of President Mohamed Waheed Hassan has been under heavy criticism from the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP), who alleged that the appointees are family members and activists who took part in the “coup that ousted the democratically elected president.”

Speaking to Minivan News previously, MDP Spokesperson Imthiyaz Fahmy said that many appointees were “senior activists in leading the coup d’état.”

“Many of them were present in Republican Square on February 7. They are unqualified and inexperienced,” he said at the time.

However, Riza at the time dismissed the allegations stating that the positions were awarded based on political party affiliation and qualifications, not based on “political activity or their presence at a certain place” which he believed reflected President Waheed’s desire to “formulate a national unity government”.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Comment: Black magic a national policy priority?

As anticipated, the three-day Bandos Resort retreat for participants at the Roadmap Talks has ended inconclusively. The fact that the representatives for the all-party negotiations, aimed at finding ways out of the current political impasse in Maldives, have promised to meet again should be seen as a success in itself, however limited.

Given the inherent nature of the talks and the stiff positions that the nation’s polity had taken on issues that were at hand, to expect anything more was rather out of the question.

In the ordinary circumstances, the talks could have broken down on the rival positions taken by the Government side and the Opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) on substantive issues. That was not to be. Media reports indicate that the Government parties had a long list of woes that they wanted the MDP to address prior to major issues could be taken up.

Or, so it seemed.

Already, there was a six-point agenda, and after a lot of haggling, the MDP had agreed to stick to an agreed prioritisation for discussions. Included in the list of woes presented by the Government parties was a demand for MDP cadres not to stop Government party leaders from setting foot on various islands. The MDP could crow about the demand as a measure of its continuing popularity on those islands. Otherwise, it is a law and order problem, which the Government is expected to handle independent of the parties involved.

Then there was a demand on the MDP promising not to practice black magic on Opposition leaders and other opponents, real or perceived. News reports claimed that the police had recovered from Male’s Usfasgandu MDP camp site materials purported to have been used by practitioners of black magic. Marked photographs of some identifiable police officers, against whom it was feared black magic might have been practised at the camp site, were also recovered. The MDP has all along claimed to be a modern, no-nonsense party. It did not contest that such materials were recovered from the camp site.

It was, however, thought that the retreat and the Roadmap Talks were expected to address major policy issues, including the dire economic situation facing the nation. It is anybody’s guess when ‘black magic’ became a national policy, above the nation’s economy, for the Roadmap Talks to expend its time on such trivia. If parties felt strongly about them, other avenues should have been identified for discussing their concerns, without holding the Roadmap Talks hostage to sub-texts whose numbers are many and can be multiplied at will.

It is anybody’s guess why the Government should have also initiated the provocative police action at the Usfasgandu MDP site coinciding with the retreat talks. The court has intervened since, and stalled the process, but the damage has been done. The Government’s move even threatened the retreat talks. It also contributed to the MDP possibly re-visiting its strategy for the retreat talks. Clearly, the prioritisation outside of the six-point agenda for the Roadmap Talks had to undergo a change. The 30-point talks thus aimed at facilitating the Roadmap Talks thus occupied much of the talks time at the retreat.

MDP too not without blame

Yet, the MDP, going again by media reports, too is not without blame. At the talks, the MDP representatives seemed to be playing hide and seek with the Government side on the give-aways and take-aways from the negotiations. They wanted the Government parties to commit themselves to one of the four demands they had made before the MDP could commit itself to one of the 30 points discussed on normalising the street situation – without giving any hint as to what the MDP’s offer could be.

If the MDP strategists thought that they were smart, that is highly doubtful. At best, the retreat process displayed the MDP’s lack of seriousness to the negotiations process. Otherwise, it amounted to a continuing display of the party’s child-like behaviour on issues of serious national importance.

The MDP’s credibility continues to be at stake. In these weeks and months after the abrupt resignation of the party’s Mohammed Nasheed as the nation’s President on February 7, the world is not any more eating exclusively out of the hands of the MDP’s media machinery. It is watching the goings-on, revisiting the information on hand – once perceived as the truth – and is possibly exchanging notes. On a serious note, for instance, for the MDP to send out names of people which it knew would definitely be rejected by the Government for inclusion in the recast Commission for National Inquiry (CNI) on the ‘resignation episode’ was to make the Commonwealth initiative look a joke of sorts. The party was not exposing the Government to the international community. It was exposing itself – and, possibly the international interlocutors.

The MDP list included the name of a serving General in the Maldivian National Defence Force (MNDF), the nation’s military. His presence on the CNI would prove the MDP right, the party had claimed. The Government, while rejecting the nomination, pointed out that the officer was a close relative of former President Nasheed. The MDP has not denied the Government’s statement. As may be recalled, through all these past months since Nasheed’s resignation, the party had said that serving senior officials of the MNDF had proposed a ‘counter-coup’ to the ‘coup’ that Nasheed claimed, after a time-lapse, as being responsible for his ‘forced resignation’. Whether any linkages could and would be made remains to be seen.

Continuing mistrust

The pre-expansion CNI has since come out with a time-line of events surrounding the resignation episode that it was tasked to probe and report on. The MDP having questioned the impartiality of the three-member probe as it stood, the latter seems to be recording its interim findings for the people to judge – before the expanded CNI took over. The party has since described the publication of the time-lines by the truncated CNI as a “blatant attempt to conceal the truth by pre-empting impartial enquiry”.

The publication is a reflection on the continuing mistrust among the stake-holders. This mistrust cannot be allowed to continue if the findings of the expanded CNI, with a former Singaporean Judge identified by the Commonwealth, and an MDP nominee accepted by the Government, have to be seen as being credible and conclusive. A split-verdict is a possibility, and any run-in during the run-up to the functioning of the expanded CNI would not make things easier, either for the impartiality of the probe or the credibility of its findings. The external member on the panel would be under pressure, too, he having to be seen as being impartial as much as he is impartial.

It is still not unlikely the expanded CNI might start off with reviewing the work already done by the probe, starting with the time-lines already publicised. It could only be a starting-point. Having had its way in having the CNI expanded with its nominee to boot, the MDP would have to swear by its report, whenever submitted. Independent of the protestations to the contrary, the party will have to answer queries on the time-lines set out by the pre-expanded CNI, particularly on the controversial questions on the even more controversial situations leading up to President Nasheed’s resignation.

For instance, there is one question on who ordered the pull-out of police men on duty at the site of competing political rallies on the night of February 6 – and, why. Reports at the time had indicated that a section of the policemen on midnight duty for weeks by then had protested to the unilateral withdrawal from a scene of prospective violence without suitable replacements being ordered in. They were among those who had taken to the streets the next day, along with political protestors, leading to the resignation, it was reported further.

Mixed bag for stake-holders

It’s at best a mixed bag for all stake-holders. Expelled MDP president Ibrahim Didi and vice-president AlhanFahmy have since taken the easy way out, by joining the Jumhoree Party of billionaire-politician Gasim Ibrahim, who had chaired the constitutional negotiations in 2007-08. The duo had threatened to challenge their expulsion by a nominated national council of the MDP in the court after the Election Commission refused to entertain their petition. The CNI time-line now indicates that Didi, then also a Minister, had chaired a Cabinet meeting when President Nasheed was in the MNDF Headquarters, talking to commanders and possible protestors, during the fateful hours preceding his resignation on February 7. Didi’s version, if any, to the CNI could thus be seen as being coloured. So could it contradict his pro-Nasheed protestations while in the party.

The MDP however has suffered a reversal since. The People’s Majlis, or Parliament has voted out the no-confidence motion moved by the party against Speaker Abdullah Shahid. Numbers did not add up, as two MDP parliamentarians voted against the party resolution and two others abstained. The party is in a quandary about initiating disciplinary action against them. It cannot afford to lose numbers. Nor could it allow individual violation of the three-line whip for MPs to become a greater issue of indiscipline that it may not be able to handle after a time. Already, the party has lost two parliamentary by-elections held since the resignation episode, bringing its strength to 31 in a House with 77 members.

The MDP cannot complain that the Government was inducing/encouraging defections from the party. It had adopted a similar tactic when President Nasheed was in office, with mixed results after failing to muster a majority in the parliamentary polls of 2009. Otherwise, too, the party needs to sit up and review its strategy in terms of targeting every democratic institution in the country as being inimical to the MDP – and by extension, to democracy as a concept. The MDP needs to look at the mirror and apply correctives if the international community on the one hand and discerning Maldivians, whose numbers are not small, have to take the party, and also its claims and allegations more seriously than at present.

Internal contradictions

The Government too cannot settle down to business as usual as if nothing had happened between December last and the present. The delayed processes pertaining to the CNI and the Roadmap Talks may have conferred post facto justification for delayed elections to the presidency than was perceived. That is not saying all. Political administration may be about processes and procedures. It is not so with politics, per se. There is a growing feeling that the Government parties are shying away from early polls, not sure of the MDP’s continuing popularity – and also owing to the internal contradictions within the ruling coalition and the internal problems facing some of the parties in power.

These internal contradictions will remain, whenever the presidential elections are held – now, or when due by July-November, 2013. Nor could the internal differences within some of these political parties, notably the Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM), founded by former President Maumoon Gayoom, be wished away at any time in the foreseeable future. The run-up to the presidential polls, whenever held, could be an occasion for furthering these differences, not cementing them. That being the case, the Government parties would need to come clean on their strategy for the future. Only based on such a strategy could they work back, on accommodating the MDP’s demand on advancing the presidential poll. Other arguments in this regard, including constitutional constraints, would fall flat on the face of mounting evidence to the contrary.

The writer is a Senior Fellow at 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)

Comment: Maldives heading towards two-party MDP/PPM system

In many cases social scientists have observed that multiparty systems, especially in a presidential political system, have inevitably transformed into two-party contests. While many parties are usually present at birth of a nascent democracy, as it matures the contest for power between these parties slowly become a fight for survival ensuring that only the strongest parties survive.

The video below demonstrates how multiparty systems filter out smaller parties as the democracy matures:

We are not of the view that a two-party system is better than a multiparty system. In fact a multiparty political system allows for more voter choice. We however do think that a multiparty system is much less likely to occur in a presidential system compared to a parliamentary political system (which is perhaps why MDP was right in endorsing a parliamentary political system when it was put to referenda). Maldivian politics too, seems like it is moving towards a two party political system. While it might be too soon to jump to conclusions, here is how we think it might happen;

The reason why we think MDP and PPM are the most likely two parties to survive is because we believe that they are the two parties with strong and exclusive principles. MDP was the founding party of Maldivian Democracy. It has stood boldly for individual freedoms, social welfare and has continuously opposed the use of force in maintaining social order (at least in principle). PPM on the other hand has endorsed a system Maldivians saw for 30 years where the emphasis is on social order, even at the expense of individual freedoms.

DRP though part of Ithihad (coalition), we predict that them moving away from it. First of all they took the bold move of forcing Gayoom to leave the party, and since then tension between DRP and PPM have been unresolvable.

Most PPM supporters feel bitter about DRP and are less likely to work with them. We think that feeling is mutual from DRP supporters towards PPM as well. The only thing now keeping MDP and DRP separated seems to be their disagreement with Mohamed Nasheed. Even then, we think if the earliest elections move to a second round DRP is much more likely to endorse the MDP candidate over Gayoom.

Given that we feel that both MDP and DRP will maintain similar ideologies the question must be answered as to why we believe MDP will survive over DRP. This is because MDP by far has a larger support base than DRP; whose members seem to be still stuck on crossroads after Gayoom left the party to form PPM.

Secondly, MDP is the party that founded democracy, and has continued to mature with these same principles while DRP was a party used to support an autocrat who they seem to disagree with now. In terms of number and consistency, it’s easy to see why MDP will win over DRP. We also predict PPM to win over DRP in the first round of the next election.

Apart from the fact that PPM continues to win former DRP members, PPM also enjoys the potential support from AP and JP as part of the Ithihad. Furthermore, we think that the lack of an exclusive principle in DRP means that swing voters who decide to vote for democracy will vote for MDP, leaving DRP expecting to win votes only from their own members.

The Adhaalath Party (AP) seems to be losing a lot of support it used to enjoy from the highly religious community in Maldives. The recent scandals, as well as the contradictory statements regarding political activism by their leaders have casted doubt on their sincerity, credibility, and commitment to Islamic principles.

Though AP leadership is expected to campaign with PPM in the second round of the upcoming elections, overtime the votes of AP members are most likely to transfer to a party which they feel, can accommodate a favorable Islamic environment.

If the Jumhooree Party (JP) was to support a principle; it would be in favor of liberalised markets and maximum commercial freedom. They seem to support least possible taxation and most possible freedoms in terms on investment and commerce. We argue that the party is likely to make coalition with a party that agrees to maintain the trade liberalisation ideology. We also would like to point out that such a coalition makes perfect sense for PPM since there seems to be no conflict of interest in adhering to the principles of JP.

Overall, our conclusion is that Maldives is likely to move towards a two-party political system as the political history matures. Perhaps parties like AP or JP might not completely die out, but it can be said with relative certainty that the main battles for presidency is to most likely happen between MDP and PPM.

This article first appeared on the Freethinker Maldives blog. Republished with permission.

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)