“MDP [Maldivian Democratic Party] must be recognised for the creative thinking behind its propaganda. They were able to convince a great deal of Maldivians that democracy and freedom as available in the western world today should have been available in the Maldives all the way through the past thirty years,” Nasheed writes (Italics mine).
Nasheed dismisses out of hand that his former master Maumoon Abdul Gayoom was a despot responsible for human rights abuses, wanton corruption, and nepotism. Not to mention, 30 years of undemocratic misrule and curtailment of basic rights.
Tracing the history of the democracy movement, which forced Gayoom to enact a sweeping agenda for democratic reform, Nasheed implies that its demands for freedom of expression, an independent judiciary and separation of powers were unwarranted and unreasonable, arguing that the MDP “distorted” the truth to serve its purposes.
Strangely, Nasheed then acknowledges, and even commends, the success of MDP’s “anti-Gayoom rhetoric”, but goes on to state that the public perception of a dictatorship it fostered was not based on reality.
But, just as he conveniently omits any mention of torture and arbitrary arrest of activists, he does not offer any explanation as to why so many people accepted MDP’s message of liberation from the clutches of a tyrant. But it begs the question, why did it resonate so deeply and “sink into the psyche of the Maldivian people” if it was so wildly exaggerated?
Ultimately, his argument boils down to a patently absurd narrative: a bunch of restless rabble-rousers misled a sleepy populace to rise up against a benevolent ruler who brought progress and prosperity to the nation.
The Maldives during Gayoom’s reign might not have been apartheid-era South Africa, but it is still disingenuous to deny that gross injustices took place. It did not happen that long ago either.
In his blog post, Nasheed further implies that Maldivians were not overly concerned with democracy before MDP came on the scene. As a result of the opposition’s efforts, he says, inalienable rights became important “almost overnight”.
“Equality before the law, fair share in economy, equitable distribution of wealth, rule of law, fundamental rights, democracy, freedom and many more similar phrases became household expressions. All of a sudden, everybody was conversant in the language of democracy,” he writes.
It is a common diversionary tactic to ascribe these universal values to the West as if to say social justice does not matter to people east of the Suez Canal.
Moreover, apologists for the former regime excuse police brutality and mass incarceration by saying the old illiberal constitution entitled the president to take such measures. Yet these same people now self-righteously extol the virtues of the democratic principles enshrined in the new constitution.
According to that logic, morality is derived from laws written on a parchment and changed radically on 7 August 2008, when the constitution was ratified.
Ironically, although they did not believe it was necessary for 27 years, Gayoom and his party now claim credit for introducing democracy by pointing to a “successful” reform agenda. I am willing to concede that it was indeed successful. It was so successful Gayoom ended up losing his job.
3 comments:
Well... Maria voted for Gayyoom weeks after Evan Naseem was brutaly murdered. Mariya signed the document for Anni's prosecution.
Zaki is the country wide crook who is still the advisor for the current.
Former MDP president was the one who sentenced one person every 40 minutes while he was the AG. for 10 years.
The current foreign Minister was the spin doctor for the old regime and during Hussein Salah's mysterious drowning case.
The list goes on and on.....
abt time some one tell kutti that he is wrong
Well said Naish.
According to kutti golhabo was the one who built male' such that every house has private toilets.In every speech during presidential election kutti talks abt the "tinu golhi" at the beach where he defeacated and now how well male' is.
I guess such toilets r really important for him to an extent the man responsible for it is indeed the father of "dhimaakuraathy".
When somebody has to justify his irrationality, inconsistency and incoherence, they will fumble, become apologist and try to make irrational statements (like 'basic rights is a Western concept'). If that blog post of Kutti doesn't explicitly expose his true self, nothing else will.
Post a Comment