The promise of hope
The work and ideals and the plight of the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) is admirable to say the least. As an opposition party, it was a monumental force in this country’s fight for change. Despite the lack of democratic guarantees, the vigour and presence of MDP resembled those in South Korea and Pinochet’s Chile, which were directly effective in the country’s governance before democracy was even realised.
In the lead up to the second round of the Presidential elections, in particular the last rally of the then opposition parties, a huge crowd gathered united under flying flags of yellow. Presidential candidate Mohamed “Anni” Nasheed spoke with rare charisma and people felt euphoric and elated.
The entire crowd watching, in their hearts anticipation and a certain sense of trepidation as all hope was invested in this man, who would lead the country to better days. As the rally came to a close, the rain began to pour just as the final blessing was made; everyone put their hands together praying for the future of this country, a move for change.
As the dawn broke on the morning on 29 October 2009, the Maldives broke the rule of a 30 year reign. At ‘raalhugandu’ people from all walks of life gathered together, hugging and crying in jubilation. Anni who had been the symbol, the personification of the democratic movement in this county had been voted our president.
As the days progressed there was a sense of peace in the air, a quiet calm that descended in the country. We all watched as Nasheed gracefully took over from Gayoom who conceded defeat. Nasheed urged everyone to be humble in victory, and so many were proud that the other Maldives had emerged. A country where democracy would begin to flourish, where justice was no longer a vision, rights inviolable and a society free from fear, free from oppression and free from want.
He made us believe that hope was real, emerging from a country whose past filled with darkness and despair, Anni was our hope for the future, and that the democratic ideals of this nation will be fulfilled. The hope of legitimacy and governance that is interested in the everyday interactions of the people.
How did these hopes and aspirations come to be replaced by disillusionment and persistent cynicism towards a government that symbolised so much?
The slippery slope
Just as it is important to emphasise democracy it is also crucial to safeguard the conditions and circumstances that ensure the range and reach of the democratic process. Valuable as democracy is as a major source of social opportunity there is also the need to examine the ways and means of making it function well, to realise its potentials. It is not whether liberty exists that is important, but how it is exercised.
The operation of the institutions of the state depends on a number of factors. However, one that is of the utmost importance is the legal framework in which political decisions are made; namely the constitution. The development of a democratically accountable and responsible government is enshrined under the structure and principles of the constitution ratified last year.
This government should be focused on preserving the sanctity of the new constitution and using it as a source of legitimacy, not deviate from its principles and adopting narrow interpretations to serve their own means as practice is now sadly indicating.
The Presidential Commission to Investigate Embezzlement is a perfect example of this government wavering from its democratic ideals, and heading down a very slippery slope. Firstly the commission is founded on very shaky and narrow legal justifications. Any half-wit interpretation of Article 115 of the constitution will corroborate that the broad powers granted to the commission are not actually justifiable under it.
The majority members of the commission sport yellow and are vehemently loyal to the president, which further goes to undermine the credibility of the commission and shows that its not transparent nor accountable to anyone but the government. It doesn’t serve the people justice, but is only self-serving for an MDP cause. What is perhaps most frightening is when asked why the commission was set up, the government argues, that it was necessary because the independent institutions are only fledgling and currently ineffective, and so far have not taken up any action with regard to the auditor general's reports.
Just because independent institutions that have the sole mandate of investigating corruption in this country are not effective, is no reason to take to take the law unto yourselves, so to speak. Instead the government should be trying to lobby the independent institutions, financing them to make them more effective and trying to ensure that these independent institutions are strengthened. Otherwise, what is the point of having any independent institutions at all? Why not get rid of them all, and instead leave it up to the executive to execute so-called justice?
The constitution should never be disregarded when political decisions are made especially those related to policy decisions impacting on the people. The decentralisation process taking place is an obvious example of this. The process is mandated for under the constitution which outlines the administrative provinces in its annex, and even more unambiguously states that the process should take place once legislation providing for decentralisation has been passed. However, this government chose to ignore these fundamentals and carried on with the process appointing home ministers, creating new administrative regions not accorded for and all without the legitimacy of an Act.
The intrinsic relevance, the protective role and the constructive importance of democracy can indeed be very extensive. Inadequacy of practice applies also to some failings in even the most mature of democracies and in a country like the Maldives that is only nascent in its consolidation of democracy, inadequacy of practice sets dangerous grounds for us to move backwards and not forwards.
The consensus which many supporters of reform and change in this country were seeking was a change from confrontation and the ‘top down’ approach to one of conciliation. Most importantly, a relationship of trust between politicians and voters and of good political decision-making in a democratic society.
Perhaps President Nasheed has forgotten that it should be the aspiration of this government that democracy and its ideals should be realised for all Maldivians and not just MDP. It was with that vested hope that the country elected him president, and it is without wonder that so many are now disillusioned with the practices of the government so far.
Of discontent and dissent
Despite all the rhetoric about how this government is a coalition, it seems that high-ranking members of the coalition who disagree with the president and the ruling party are now slowly but surely being shown the door. Or so disillusioned with the practices of the government they have resigned and left.
The practice of democracy in a coalition government, consensual politics implies that politicians, particularly those from different political parties, seek to reach agreement by accommodating each others’ differences. These ministers had to voice out their opinions, perhaps because professional advice they were giving was not listened to by the ruling party. They then became disgruntled and resorted to expressing their opinions to the media, to inform the public.
The first to go, Gasim Ibrahim, the home minister, only after 22 days in office in an unexpected move after police actions on the rioting resorts. Upon resigning from cabinet he expressed criticisms over the government’s privatisation plans. It’s not the biggest secret, that there are many in the MDP that mock Gasim’s political abilities and from the beginning did not show him the loyalty and respect he deserved, therefore conclusive that perhaps he felt marginalised in cabinet.
Next was Dr Hassan Saeed, elevated to the post of advisor to the president, resigned on the hundredth day of the government. Perhaps Saeed was not so wise to leak confidential advice he gave to the president to the media. However, suppose that it was the only choice he had because his advice had not been listened to? It must have been quite frustrating to give sound advice and not have it listened to, and MDP loyalists painting the picture that Saeed was a man still bitter about losing the presidential elections.
If he was so bitter about losing in the first round of the presidential elections, why would he have rallied so much support for President Nasheed towards to second round? Hassan Saeed’s resignation only confirmed to the public, what they already knew. That he was only appointed to the post as a posturing of a democratic coalition, but the reality was that he too was sidelined and dismissed.
Most recently, fervently the door was shown to Dhiyana Saeed as the attorney general, whose fault again was using the medium of the media to express her legal dissent compromising collective cabinet responsibility. However, her legal opinions stand with merit and clout among the populous. As the attorney general who has a responsibility to the people to uphold the constitution, it is without wonder she got frustrated when the president ignored her advice and asked instead to sideline legality to get things done. Upon her resignation Dhiyana spoke openly of how she felt criticised and blatantly ridiculed even in cabinet meetings and by members of the ruling MDP.
It is the duty of this government to ensure that the new constitution is executed well, and policy is implemented according to the rule of law. But instead, they dismiss the attorney general (assign Ali Hashim, party loyalist as the acting attorney general when there are several lawyers in Cabinet) and speak of downsizing the attorney general’s office (AGO), mandated under the constitution for upholding the rule of law.
Perhaps it might be easier for MDP to rubberstamp their policies whilst flouting legality if there was no AGO, however it certainly sets a very dangerous precedent, and is the wrong way forward for fragile democracy with a frail judiciary.
The only non-MDP ministers who are tolerated in cabinet so far is Dr Ali Sawad, minister of tourism, arts and culture; Dr Hassan Latheef, minister of human resources, youth and sports; and Dr Mustafa Luthfy, minister of education, seemingly docile personalities who have not said anything controversial and are so far behaving without ruffling any feathers.
Rumours have it that the Minister of Civil Aviation and Communication Dr Jameel will follow in Dhiyana’s footsteps as a result of his very vocal criticisms of the ruling party during the parliamentary election campaign. Next will come Dr Shaheed, although the attempts to vilify his reputation during the whole Kosovo fiasco, including presidential orders that the police investigate the allegations of corruption, proved unsuccessful.
It begs the question would the president have been so quick to investigate had it been cabinet members of his own party? Nonetheless Shaheed will probably stay as he not only survived but came out on top after attempts of tainting during the Kosovo allegations. He is also an invaluable asset to the government as foreign minister, respected by the international community and as one of the shrewdest politicians in this country it is better to keep him in cabinet rather that as a vocal opponent.
At the end of the day when only around 20 per cent of the country voted for MDP, how democratic is a cabinet that is only reflective of a minority voice just because the president wants only people who he is not afraid of, who will not say ‘no’ to him. Loyalty and collective cabinet responsibility is certainly important, however, they say that the most solid relationships are built from friends who are not afraid to criticise you. Blind loyalty is certainly not what this government needs right now.
Even during the parliamentary elections the MDP campaigned with a certain air of arrogance. They lost because they were so sure they were going to win. They talked about what hadn’t been achieved in the past thirty years of dictatorship instead of focusing on what was achieved in eight months of democracy. Instead of talking about moving the country forward instead of focusing on how the government was going to provide better healthcare or affordable housing they talked about how one of their first agenda’s to put before parliament would be how to bring the actions of the former regime to justice. An eye for an eye, as they say will only lead to blindness.
As the numbers from the constituencies came in, state ministers (one of whom was even jailed overnight as a result of nuisance) led mass demonstrations outside the headquarters of the Elections Commission, yelled at the police, and blamed the media for what went wrong. They could not look beyond the arrogance that because they were the ruling party, defeat in the parliamentary elections was even a possibility.
Even more telling are the actions of MDP loyalists and candidates who tried to sabotage other party candidates’ campaigns. Perhaps they forgot that they were no longer the grassroot activists yelling on the streets for change, or forgot that they were the ruling party and a government with a responsibility or to act with more decorum that is expected of them by the public. Especially after their display during the parliamentary elections, MDP can never again take any moral high ground when foul play is alleged, because instead of upholding the democratic process, they played a major role in trying to stifle and defy it.
It seemed at times their demeanour during the parliamentary elections, carried an air of desperation, intimidation and a slight whiff of what the former dictatorial regime used to do, when they knew they were about to lose at something. The MDP now moves fashioning a set of very large blinkers.
The heartbeat of democracy
Perhaps President Nasheed needs to revisit the days leading up to the second round of the presidential elections, and remember the Grand Patriotic Coalition. That it was the effort of the leaders of all the parties that got him elected and for that he needs to do them due justice, and remember Wathan Edhey Gothah, as the people will.
Perhaps what this government needs to understand is that conflict over public interest should be accepted and indeed welcomed as an inevitable part of a democratic society. In such a society political decision making must be based on the principle of genuine consultation, the need to engage in discussion among different points of view, and on pragmatic practice of reaching compromises amid conflicting goals and values.
If the ruling MDP continues to use its new power for self-serving means and ends, they are making a mockery of what democracy is along with everything that they and the people of this country have fought so hard for and avowed against. It is time that the MDP revisit their values and promises that they made to the people that elected them.
It can be argued that the MDP have ensured that in the Maldives ‘democracy’ now operates as part of the ideology of oppression by pretending falsely that it offers its citizens equality and freedom when it does not. Whereas for so many years this country’s effects have gone towards the hope that MDP will instill a radical transformation of society which will overthrow the structure of oppression and allow people to come to understand and meet their true needs. Convicted in the belief that no other form of regime offers perfect freedom and equality so much as a liberal democracy.
If people’s trust for the government is waning only after six months after inauguration there are certainly bleaker days ahead for our tiny nation. Let us hope that Lord Acton’s aphorism (that absolute power corrupts absolutely) does not ring true once again for the Maldives.
It is certainly time to take the pulse of the nation, and to see whether the heartbeat of democracy in the Maldives, under the rule of the Maldivian Democratic Party, is still ticking.
