For years I have been writing and speaking to friends and family about socio-political problems in the Maldives and the experience of writing a blog has provided me a different platform to engage in such discussions with a wider audience. Interestingly, this blog has also allowed me to test the boundaries of freedom of expression in the Maldives. The experience of writing about the Maldives has taught me a few lessons. One important lesson has been that freedom of expression is still just an idea, albeit a popular one, in the Maldives but is not yet held by all – political parties and their supporters are still far from embracing the norms and behaviour congruent with a genuine democratic society in the Maldives. I have received threats due to some of my writings, which show the mentality of some people in the country and reminds me of the limitations of freedom of expression in the Maldives.

This blog is not a consequence of the events of February 7^th 2012, but the events of that day had us all looking for answers. I wrote a tribute to former President Nasheed because I respected him and believed he should have been allowed to complete his term despite his shortcomings. Following the Commission of National Inquiry (CONI) report and a number of other investigations from different sides, it is clear that the legitimacy of the transfer of power can be argued in different ways. My conclusion now is that the transfer of power ticked all the legal boxes and therefore, can be claimed as a legal transfer of power and not a coup. But, did it tick all the boxes required from an aspiring democratic society? Clearly it didn’t, because otherwise we wouldn’t have so many outraged factions across the country. More importantly, the legality of the transfer of power does not remove agency from the actors who set back the democratisation process of the country and incited lawlessness and violence in the country prior to February 7th. I am guessing that the events of the day will keep us debating for many decades to come.

Unfortunately, President Waheed does not seem to have any set policies or strategies apart from fulfilling the demands of the people that brought him to his position. I don’t know what direction he wants the country to go in – liberal, religious, modern? He is too busy cleaning up the mess that brought him to power and I remain convinced that he is only the ‘crisis president’ and that his presidency will only be remembered for how he came to power, not for what he did for the country.

I appreciate the fact that some Maldivians look up to Mohamed Nasheed as their leader, but over the past 7-8 months he has not helped the situation in the country. He is a public figure who wants to be in power in a deeply divided country, so excuse me for expecting more from him.  I expect his commitment to his country to supersede his political ambitions, but he has failed to meet my expectations many times over the past several months. For example, his warnings to foreign investors about his own country; the recent declaration by him to attempt to overthrow the government from the streets; and asking GMR to stay despite a government ruling, undermines his own country, his party and his political position. Sadly, it just shows the lengths he is willing to go to return to power. He is an activist, not the peace broker and leader the Maldives desperately needs.

The murder of MP Dr. Afrashim Ali in October 2012 had a profound impact on us all. We lost an inspirational religious thinker who was brave enough to challenge extremist religious thinkers and smart enough to explain religious issues to the masses with extensive knowledge about his subject matter. His murder rang alarm bells across the country over the gravity of lawlessness and political violence prevalent in the Maldives, but these alarm bells did not last long. Even last week MP Alhan Fahmy was physically assaulted by an unknown group of individuals at a public gathering, and little has changed on the ground to bring law and order back to the streets.

One thing we have learned from the events of 2012 is that Adhaalath Party must be isolated. No party should align with this hate-preaching, misogynistic and anti-democracy group, regardless of the potential short-term political benefits of doing so. People ask me why I am so critical of Adhaalath Party and the answer is simple. They want to restrict my right to exist as an equal human being; they preach hatred towards anyone with different thoughts, beliefs and ideas; and they misuse Islam to spread venom across the country.  Moreover, they have no policies, no plans and no solutions to our problems but only a determination to manipulate every incident and situation to meet their needs. Religious parties exist in all democracies and have a right to exist, but for anyone aspiring to have a peaceful democratic existence, such parties should never be empowered to dictate to the whole country, particularly in divided societies.

The government take-over of the airport from GMR was the right decision, difficult and controversial as it may be. Economic theory suggests that you should not privatise monopolies, particularly where there are no balances and measures to ensure consumers are protected in society. The longer the airport was under GMR control, the longer the conflict over it would have dragged out. The costs and benefits of the GMR deal can be debated but I won’t undervalue our sovereignty, especially following the Indian governments’ reaction to the take-over.

I still believe MDP might be the way forward in 2013 because if we look around the political spectrum of the Maldives, MDP is more likely to be liberal and perhaps genuinely believe in democratic principles. Their actions can be controversial but at least they aspire to be something I believe in. I’m not so sure about what drives PPM and the rest – religion, power, or a desire for positive change. I guess we have to wait for the manifestoes of 2013 to find out.

Another year has passed and we are still as far away as ever from realising our democratic dreams. 2013 will no doubt be eventful due to the election, and I shall remain optimistic about the future despite the challenges ahead. Politicians continue to fail us through their partisan approach to the problems we face, so the tenacity within us, the people, needs to be reinvigorated with a new determination to change our attitudes towards those who think differently from ourselves and most importantly, to put the country ahead of our individual alliances.

Happy New Year!

Adhaalath Party, ultra-conservative and extreme in their views, surfaced into Maldivian politics in 2005 using the liberties granted by what they call ‘dheenmugura’ or what we call democracy. Back in the Gayyoom days, whilst some people were genuinely fighting for civil liberties, Adhaalath Party hopped on to the democracy bandwagon to spread their ultra-conservative religious agenda into mainstream politics. This agenda was partially based on characterising opponents according to what they perceive as Islamic and un-Islamic. Calling themselves ‘dhanna beykalun’ (meaning: know-it-alls) they began a campaign to rile up a country that was practicing Islam peacefully for 800 years.

On 22^nd September 2008, 44 religious scholars, of whom a large majority were from Adhaalath Party, released a statement against Gayyoom, criticizing him for advocating secular and ladheenee ideas.  Gayyoom’s stance against death penalty, compulsory veiling and attempts to control religious extremism earned him the label ‘ladheenee apostate’ by the religious conservatives. In the run up to the election in 2008, Adhaalath Party leaders were crying on podiums and begging the country to free themselves of Gayyoom.

Three years down the line, how mighty the tides have changed.

Adhaalath Party still exists, but the Gayyoom they judged as a ‘ladheenee apostate’ has become their current political guru. Almost all of the 44 religious scholars that released the statement against Gayyoom in 2008 now belong to Gayyoom’s party, Progressive People’s Party (PPM). And the man they rallied support for in 2008, Mohamed Nasheed is now labelled as the ‘ladheenee apostate’.

For Adhaalath Party, being put in charge of their own ministry to spread their venom did not suffice. School children’s singing competition was ladheenee. Celebrating New Year’s Eve was ladheenee. The tomb of Abul Barakaat Yusuf al-Barbari was ladheenee. The democratic ideals that empowered them to open their big mouths also became ladheenee.  In short, the whole world except the Wahhabi clan in Saudi Arabia became ‘ladheenee’.  However, much to their disappointment their targeted audience was not too receptive to their ridiculous callings.

Nasheed’s administration became the obvious target to direct their religious frustrations and what better way to rile up anti-government support than to use Islam. They had already experienced success with this political tactic in 2008. By making people feel as if their religious identity was under threat, together with the backing of power-hungry politicians, a movement to remove President Nasheed developed.  And this, they did very well – with public statements, tears on podiums, brotherly love developed in the name of Islam, protests and of course who can forget the melodramatic 23^rd December Ithihaad! As I have said before, some of the criticism directed towards Nasheed’s administration was well-deserved; but religious fanatics used this as an impetus to create an anti-Islamic conspiracy around President Nasheed. This drama unfolded with President Nasheed being ousted on 7^th February 2012 and now, guess who has two seats in the current cabinet?

Clearly their ladheenee gibberish worked its magic because as fools we have begun to characterise politician’s behaviour according to the Adhaalath-endorsed ladheenee scale. The irony is that a lot of people that now use the term ‘ladheenee’ are liberal advocates, only using the term in an attempt to mock the current regime. When President Waheed attended a church service in honour of the Queen’s diamond jubilee, his opponents (including liberal advocates such as Dr. Farahanaz Faisal) criticised his attendance purely for spite. If she was invited I’m sure she would have attended as well but obviously the opportunity to point his ladheenee behaviour was too good. The ‘Bon Aqua incident of hand holding with a strange woman’ by Sheikh Shaheem, a photograph of President Waheed and his wife in front of a temple, the recent video of President Waheed’s daughter speaking at a conference about a ‘Dark Mother God’ and the hiring of a foreign women as a legal consultant by the current regime are examples labelled and popularised on social media by the liberals as ‘ladheenee’. People do this for fun, to mock and scapegoat, to spite and out of anger, but who wins in the end?

The whole basis of me writing this piece is because I wanted to highlight the repercussions of the continuous moral categorisation and judgement of individual behaviour for which ever reason.

Firstly, by calling people ladheenee and supporting the accusations of our so-called religious scholars we are empowering them. When President Waheed attended the church service many tweets were directed towards Sheikh Shaheem asking his opinion, obviously in sarcasm. My view is that if you make mullahs feel as if their gibberish matters and their opinions count, they will act as if they have a moral authority over people (even if no one is listening!). It makes them feel important.

Secondly, the continuous use of the term ‘ladheenee’ sends the wrong message to young people. If both the religious conservatives and the liberals in the country continuously pick on each other’s behaviour and label each other for mockery or for religious reasons, young people read and dwell in an environment where intolerance is emphasized. How can we create an inclusive culture and teach our children to respect equality and diversity if we continue to morally police each other? The political unrest in the country is not hidden from young people and the language we use will be emulated by them. Furthermore, it may make young people fearful of doing entirely normal things or fearful of questioning anything because they may be deemed ladheenee.

Finally, calling each other ladheenee and pointing fingers will never let us be in peace. Sensationalising each other’s private lives or every action to show whose the worst ladheenee is petty and a waste of time – time we could spend to try and resolve our differences. The current political mess we are in is not some high school drama – remember that every action has a repercussion which shapes the stability of this country.

Enough said, shall we stop with the ladheenee talk!

A good friend of mine, who is also a prominent Palestinian activist, was pleasantly surprised to hear about the love and prayers Maldivians have been sending to Palestinians for decades, all the way from our tiny islands. But little does she know how our relationship in support of Palestine plays a crucial role in Maldivian politics, or that in our land, the Arab-Israel conflict is used as a tool to rile up emotions by politicians and religious scholars. My worry is that little do we know that our love for Palestine is inadvertently crossing into racism at times.

More recently the term anti-Semitic (hatred of Jews) has been used in association with our country and I find this extremely shameful. This association is mainly due to the folly of our politicians and the actions of religious fundamentalists in the Maldives, in their drive to gain moral authority over each other. But the fact that our name is written in the same sentence as anti-Semitism today is a disgrace and begs the important question, are Maldivians really anti-Semitic? After much thinking, my answer to this question is no. There is recent evidence to counter my answer, but I believe Maldivians are essentially not anti-Semitic. Ignorant and misinformed some of us may be, but we are not as a nation anti-Semitic. When I say this I am not speaking on behalf of the minority of brainwashed religious mullahs in the Maldives, but on behalf of ordinary Maldivians. If I ask my mother what her views of Israel are, she would say that she hates Israel for the suffering of Palestinians. This answer stems from a longstanding loyalty to Palestinians and Muslims and not because of a deep-entrenched hatred of Jews.

Dislike of Israel is not equal to anti-Semitism; people are allowed to scrutinize and dislike the state of Israel for the countless atrocities they have committed against the people of Palestine, and many western organisations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch are critical of Israeli war crimes and discrimination against Palestinians. Since 2003 the UN has passed 232 resolutions with respect to Israel, of which a large majority are very critical of Israel. Their criticism is not considered anti-Semitic. Equally, our continuous support of the Palestinian cause should not be considered anti-Semitic.

Having said that, how do we explain the common use of language such as ‘yahoodhi kaleyge’ when we insult a person, or our tolerance of anti-Jewish slurs by our religious scholars? If the country is being perceived as anti-Semitic because of the actions and words of some Maldivians, it is important that we ask ourselves why this is the case. Has our support for Palestinians unfortunately laid the foundations for hatred towards Israelis and Jews? If Maldivians have any anti-Jewish tendencies, it is because our religious upbringing required us to look at Jews differently using religious justifications, and because our education system limits us to knowledge of Islamic and Maldivian history.  I am sure there are many Maldivians who to this day would not have heard of the Holocaust or the fact that not all Israelis are Jewish! I am tired of listening to rhetoric and sermons by political and religious morons who are incapable of understanding the difference between racism and diplomatic support for Palestine. We have tolerated the indoctrination of our children with subjective and wrongful interpretations of Islam by bigoted so-called religious scholars for too long!

After more than 50 years of conflict, today most people recognise that the state of Israel has a right to exist (even Yasser Arafat accepted UN Security Council Resolution 242 in 1988!) as much as Palestine. As a small nation state we need to remember that such conflicts are controlled by forces way beyond our influence and status, and the only thing we can do is support Palestine in spirit and by diplomatic means. But this support should not be on the basis of hating Jews. The Arab-Israeli conflict should not be a cause for us to degrade ourselves and be viewed as anti-Semitic. As importantly, it should not be cause for us to squabble mindlessly amongst ourselves over which party supports Palestine more!

Similar to Western countries that impose sanctions or halt all diplomatic ties where they find injustice and violence, many Muslim countries refuse to establish diplomatic ties with Israel because they find Israel ‘aggressive and oppressive’ in the Arab-Israel conflict. There are also some Muslim countries that maintain diplomatic relations with Israel, such as Egypt, Turkey and Jordan.  Historically the Maldives has chosen to reject diplomatic ties with Israel but it does not mean it has to be this way forever. We should be able to discuss this issue in the Parliament or any forum as responsible citizens without resorting to racism. Whatever our government chooses to do, it should represent the views of the people and it certainly should not be a cause for conflict amongst ourselves.

I am a firm supporter of Palestine’s right to self-determination and have actively joined pro-Palestinian demonstrations in the past, whilst some of the most wonderful people I have met abroad are Jewish. Having grown up in the Maldives, the experience of meeting people from various cultures, discussing this very conflict together with Palestinians and Jews and the exposure to a range of literature abroad have made me reassess my own preconceptions. I am sure the new generation of educated Maldivians have had similar experiences to my own and see the world through a different lens to the older generations. We should wholeheartedly support Palestine in every way, but we should do it the right way. If the chosen way of showing solidarity with Palestine is refusal to establish any diplomatic ties with Israel similar to the majority of Muslim countries, so be it. But neither religion nor a deep sense of loyalty to Palestine should be reason for us to preach and teach hatred towards any person of any faith, race and political affiliation. We are better than that.

Here is a non-exhaustive list of actions that we need to undertake to get us out of our political predicament.

1-      First thing first – Establish the credibility of the Commission of National Inquiry assigned to find facts/truth about the legitimacy of transfer of power on 7^th February 2012.

It is integral that this inquiry committee appoints an international observer, or better, an international participant. If a large portion of the general population question the integrity and credibility of this committee there is no point of having an inquiry, regardless of whether or not it is actually credible. Apart from finding facts, the onus of this inquiry should also be to remove public uncertainty and disaffection over the legitimacy of the transfer of power and of those that rule the country at the moment. Clearly the MDP supporters and many others already question the committee’s credibility and one of the primary stakeholders in the transfer of power, MDP, refuse to accept the inquiry committee at all because of a lack of international, impartial presence associated with the committee. In this situation, is it not wise to appoint an international participant in order to appease all actors involved and make their inquiry impartial in the eyes of their targeted audience? Otherwise it is a wasted effort. Furthermore, the mandate of this committee should not only be to lay out facts but also to lay out recommendations and a follow-up plan of activities to promote its findings and to advocate its recommendations.

2-      Laying the groundwork for the next election. The inquiry committee will submit a full report on their findings to the President, Prosecutor General and Attorney General on 31^st May 2012.  Whether the transfer of power is found to be legal or illegal, the important question is ‘what happens next?’ Regardless of the conclusions of the inquiry committee, in my opinion (similar to many Maldivians and international bodies) the only way to move forward within the country would be to hold an election in the near future to settle this conflict. Azima Shukoor (Attorney General) and Dhunya Maumoon (Minister of State for Foreign Affairs) state that a free and fair election cannot be held without strengthening the state institutions such as the judiciary, election commission and the human rights commission – makes sense! But they keep saying this over and over again without stating what they plan to do to strengthen these institutions or to overcome these institutional roadblocks to make an election possible. To me it appears that they are just saying this for the sake of it without any ingenuity.  Whilst some may argue that it is under these very same institutions that the local council (2011), parliamentary (2009) and the presidential elections (2008) took place, we have to admit that the circumstances have changed since these elections and the country is at a political juncture which requires rethink and reformation at all levels.

Even if we don’t have an early election, the next impending election, according to the current constitution, is not too far away (October 2013), so should we not get ready for an election now and make it a priority to make the necessary reforms to strengthen these institutions, starting from now? If these state institutions are so weak and unreliable why are they being used for any other state purpose without making the much needed reforms as soon as possible? The current government and parliament should stop making excuses and start making the necessary institutional amendments to ensure that the next election, be it an early one or as scheduled, is possible and fair.

If the constitution needs to be amended, this is only possible through the parliament and all MPs should work within the walls of the parliament to allow the legal changes needed to guarantee the rights and institutional framework required for a free and fair election. The government needs to ensure that members of the election commission are educated and trained in order to ensure their conduct is impartial, neutral and balanced at all times. The political parties and the media should accept and adopt a code of conduct to govern the election campaign and the polling period. The government should ensure that all parties have equal access to state media and the state media should provide non-partisan media coverage.

3-      Reform, reform and reform the Judiciary. The judiciary of our country is a disgrace and none of us rely on the courts to provide justice for any crime. The judiciary is infamous for its corruption; many of our judges in the lower court are under-qualified and their integrity and impartiality is highly questionable; and politicians have their claws all over the judiciary. Worst of all for me is that some judges in the lower court even have previous criminal convictions! I am not a legal expert and I am sure our country has brilliant lawmakers (e.g. Kutti Nasheed) to reform our judiciary. We need a group of non-partisan lawyers to create a public document of various legal reforms that could be undertaken to strengthen our judiciary and promote this wherever possible. Every time there is a political crisis, talk of judiciary reform alights, but this always slips off the public radar soon afterwards. The public and the country’s legal experts need to keep this pressure loud and ongoing.

4-      Reforms within the security forces. We all know that whichever way the Police Integrity Commission (PIC) concludes their investigations, there is a need to change police conduct. The PIC investigation should find a number of incidents of police brutality (including use of excessive force, violent attacks and intimidation) and so on, but the top tier of the security forces needs to recognise that their misconduct is also very much due to systematic failure of the authorities of MPS and MNDF to steer off political influence, keep appropriate checks and educate and democratise police officers. PC Riyaz’s Q & A on Minivan News encourages me.

5-      The current leader of our crisis government, President Waheed, is not really helping himself or his government, as he continues to make the same mistakes Nasheed did. Mr. President: listen to your critics and respond to the plight of the people you serve. Even if you can argue that technically your position is legitimate you have to admit that you are not in that position by popular vote. You cannot win the hearts of disaffected people by giving ministerial positions to Gayyoom’s children, especially given our political history, even if they are the most qualified for the job. I have not heard you forcefully condemn police brutality or show any empathy towards the disillusioned portion of the population. Remember when you campaigned to release Nasheed from prison in the ‘black ribbon campaign’ and when you stood against oppressors not so long ago!  Using your many years of experience working in complex post-conflict zones, I hope your conscience allows you to make compromises and make decisions that help to diffuse this conflict, rather than aggravating it.

6-      Nasheed needs to go to the table to negotiate and try to solve the political crisis with Maldivians, not his foreign ‘friends’. Nasheed’s recent interviews in the US showcased his personable character but also his political naivety. If he wishes to continue promoting The Island President, he should do so without defaming a country that earns its bread from its image!

7-      Setting the right priorities – Before investigating the arrest of Judge Abdulla Mohamed, we need to take a step back and investigate why he was arrested in the first place. Investigate the allegations against him separately from the wider political investigations and problems.

8-      Don’t put the cart before the horse. As a society we are more politically aware than ever before but not necessarily more responsible. We cannot make any progress by putting the cart before the horse. We shout for democracy without ridding ourselves of old patronage and alliances, and without respecting human rights. We call for snap elections whilst knowing that the current institutional framework needs changes. We demand things without looking at how we are actually going to get them.

We will only be in peace by finding long term solutions to our political problems. We can only be at peace if we develop a framework and a mentality which allows democracy to truly flourish in our country. These are my thoughts and there is more to add here. Please feel free to share your solution based thoughts.

It is true, old habits die hard. After 30 years of repression and authoritarian rule we still continue to focus on personalities; our institutions are not independent of specific personalities and as a society we continue to limit each other’s political freedoms. We need to liberate ourselves from our traditional, personalised patronage politics. We need to liberate ourselves from the old habits.

To be democratic we need to understand that the rule of law precedes everything; civil liberties such as freedom of expression should be exercised with responsibility and as a society we need to make informed and responsible decisions in selecting and electing those who represent our voice.

President Waheed was right when he said on Hardtalk that ‘we have come to this point because we have not respected our constitution. We have not respected the rule of law. The last thing I want to do is to circumvent our constitution’. So when and where have we circumvented our constitution? Without going into the details of Gayyoom’s 30 year authoritarian regime, if we begin with the dawn of our democracy following the election of Mohamed Nasheed, when and where have the laws of the land been flouted? Where have we failed at democracy?

The rule of law was flouted when the Supreme Court was locked down under the order of Nasheed. The rule of law was flouted when a senior judge was ‘judgenapped’ and arrested. We failed at democracy when projects or investment opportunities were given to political party aides and cronies without declaration of ‘conflict of interest’ or without a fair bidding process. We failed at democracy as the number of family ties increased within the top brass of the state institutions. We failed at democracy as murderers, rapists and child molesters walk free. We failed at democracy when we failed to listen to public protests for 22 consecutive days, regardless of whether they were 200 people, a minority, or 100,000 people.

During Nasheed’s regime, the opposition too failed at democracy because they refused to accept the rules of the game of democracy. Over the past couple of years the opposition have been hell bent on creating parliamentary deadlocks which delayed the enactment of key legislations; used religious fervour to rile up anti-MDP sentiments and backed questionable characters to achieve their political goals. Democracy is not the only game in town if the losers of an election do not accept their defeat. If we see democracy under the axiom of a game, it will only continue to work if the losers in the game want to play/try again within the same institutional framework under which they lost.

Our constitutional sins reached a new level on 7^th February 2012. The constitution of our country was punched in the face when our democratically elected leader was ousted in a coup. If Nasheed was such a failure, his removal should have been by the rule of law, by the people and by the ballot. Whether by the fate of circumstances, by Nasheed’s own making or by advanced planning the removal of an elected President by force, has set a very dangerous precedent here and in my opinion this constitutional sin is worse than anything Nasheed ever did.

I am willing to accept that politicians from all sides have failed to uphold the rule of law in the past, move forward and draw lessons from it. So I ask President Waheed, since he holds the reigns now, what is his plan to uphold and maintain the rule of law? The current government’s commitment to democracy will continue to be tested and judged by the disgruntled opposition until the next election. Until then I hope our fragile democracy will continue to withstand the pressures and shocks without abandoning the electoral process ever again.  The lesson for all of us is, never again should the constitution and rule of law be abandoned under the guise of upholding democracy.

I am not really concerned about ‘who’ is in power as long as the person in power is there through legitimate means and is concerned about implementing positive change. We have intellectuals on both sides of the political spectrum. Our infant democracy was born by the work of several people. For every protester there was an intelligent and energetic policymaker creating the rules of the game. For instance, Nasheed is a great orator and a true torch bearer for democracy. While Nasheed carried the torch, there were policy makers behind the table such as Dr. Ahmed Shaheed, Dr. Hassan Saeed, and Dr. Waheed who rigorously used other channels to bring democracy to our country. All of them should be credited for their contributions regardless of which side of the table they are on.

Some of our MP’s display appalling behaviour, ignorance and a lack of professionalism. Some are borderline criminals. When the next election confronts us, we as the electorate have a moral responsibility to select and elect leaders who are competent, crime-free and open-minded.

One of the fundamental components of democracy is freedom of expression, because without it, free elections mean nothing.  We do enjoy ‘freedom of expression’ in the Maldivesbut without any responsibility. Freedom of expression is an abused freedom in the Maldives because religious extremists use it to spread their religious fatwas, war-mongerers use it to spread their hate, politicians use it to create division and the media uses it to spread half-truths. Where is our sense of social responsibility when we exercise freedom of expression?

We need to remember that before the 7^th of February there were thousands of people that opposed MDP and exercised their fundamental right to criticize. The coup was not undertaken by the opposition supporters, therefore, why should they be labelled as ‘baghees’ (traitors)? The level of cyber bullying evident on social media towards anyone associated with the current government is one example where freedom of opinion is violated. The number of people that tell me that they are afraid to show their support to the parties they supported prior to 7^th February due to fear of being labelled as ‘baghee’  is proof enough that freedom of opinion and expression is no longer a given. Without proper freedom of thought, opinion and association we will never be able to safeguard the integrity of our elections.

As a society that aspires to be democratic we all have a social responsibility to respect the rule of law, exercise our freedoms with responsibility and empower politicians for the right reasons. We are the drivers of change and politicians are only the mediators we select to implement the change we want.

Some studies suggest that most newly democratising countries will go through a phase of violence or instability before democracy fully settles in. Some argue that it is a temporary phase. I am hoping this is our temporary phase. I am hoping that we learn from our mistakes. I am praying that this storm passes soon.

Dear Anonymous,

Thank you for the open letter. I always welcome polite discussion and I take this letter as something I can reflect upon.

I do read comments from people – including the critical comments – when posted on my blogs, and I try to read the comments on twitter, but I don’t follow every tweet. I write under the belief that people will either agree or disagree with what I write and I cannot please everyone. I’ve not seen the twitter comments you mentioned in your letter and even if I had seen them I still would not change the way I write or the way I see the situation in the Maldives. This is my blog and, as you have written, I too write how I interpret the situation. We all have different views and in a democracy, as you know, we are allowed to have different opinions.

Regarding the criticism about the ‘Police or protester: still the ordinary man’ post, all I want to say is that before you become a voter, political participant or policeman, you are first an individual, a human being, an ordinary man. By ‘ordinary man’ I meant the ordinary Maldivian, regardless of their background, uniform or party. I hope most readers got the gist of the term and the article. I don’t think anyone is confused about what a policeman or protester is, or what their roles have been in the recent events, but my article was simply asking people to see beyond the exterior uniforms of each other (be they the uniform of the police, or the protestor), acknowledging that beneath every uniform is an ordinary person.

In response to some of the comments you have mentioned -it is a deeply misguided view to think that ‘every political party’s raison d’être is to grab and hold power’. They are there to serve the people not fight over power. You and I empower political parties/politicians/councilors/leaders so that they can serve our best interests. I am aware that unfortunately this is not the case in the Maldives, but it should be! Their mandate has become to fight and hold onto power, but that does not make it right!

One of the comments you quoted suggests I’m trying to associate all that is bad with the current situation with MDP. This is not the case. However, my blog posts are written very much in the context of the immediate events and I do find MDPians embroiled in violence in many instances. You cannot tell me that they are always the victims of violence. By saying this, I am in no way excluding others from the responsibility of causing violence in the country, including the police and other political parties. Saying all of that, MDP as a political party ‘serving the people’ should take responsibility for any of their supporters who go out in the name of MDP and incite violence, as should anyone else.

If what I write is influencing anyone then it’s great. I have not called for anything negative and have only called for peace, non-violence and negotiation. As I said before, when you criticize you have to name some. Within this democracy that we both aspire to achieve, people should be able to take opposing views and deal with criticism, so I thank you for your open letter.

The overthrow of Nasheed, the increase in violence, political polarization – the root causes of these are many. I do tend not to dwell too much on the root causes in every post because I want to address some of the immediate problems we are facing. I do agree that the many root causes of the coup and violence in the Maldives need to be addressed and I will take note of this.

I respect your view that you see what is going on as a class struggle and probably a class war but neither I nor you can determine this. All of this is subjective interpretation. I’m not blind or deaf to the fact that there are hundreds that go out to protest every night so there is clearly a loud voice that needs to be listened to. My posts are not intended to be used against those that are protesting for their democratic rights, but merely to inform that there are two sides to every story.

I think we both want the same thing – an election which hopefully brings a resolution to the conflict. We just have different ways of approaching the same problem.

Thanks,

Endhimariyambu

Ps: If you are a friend of mine, why didn’t you approach me directly? We could have had very interesting conversations!

As a society that aspires to be democratic, we need to understand that in democratic politics policies, practices and processes of state institutions are normally heavily scrutinised by the public, opposition groups, the media and social groups.  Unfortunately, in the Maldives criticism is taken very negatively and even those who call for freedom of expression and opinion are unable to embrace criticism when it is directed towards them.  For anyone writing on the Maldives, one has to be very cautious of naming individuals or groups because such criticism can be perceived as a personal attack or party bias. For instance, if I criticise PPM for their questionable religious agenda I may be seen as being biased towards liberal MDP, whereas if I criticise MDP’s corrupt practices I may be seen as being biased towards Gayyoom.

More often than not people find it hard to appreciate criticism without taking it personally and tend to think that the critic has a personal agenda or is a ‘spy’ of a particular party.  This explains why political debate in the Maldives is heavily engulfed in name-calling, slander and allegations, rather than accepting criticism as a means to re-evaluate one’s own position and thinking. Even if a point is sensible and well intentioned, your views are likely to be judged by some as biased towards whatever party your views are in line with.

We embarked on a democratic transition because we wanted to work together as a country despite divided opinions. Most Maldivians are aligned to certain parties and public figures for different reasons. My 83 year old grandmother supports Nasheed (unlike anyone I know) because after 83 gruelling years of poverty and hard work, Nasheed’s basic pension scheme provided her with some state benefit at the age of 80. It had taken her 80 years to reap any benefit from the government – a reminder to us all that the wealth of the country never trickled down to people at the bottom of the social ladder.  Everyone who is at all interested in politics has their own political position and will support those most aligned to that position. This can be for a variety of reasons, be it for religion, for power, for wealth, for jobs, or for justice. Having an inclination towards one party or leader is being human. The problem with the likes of my grandmother (and many others!) is that their support for Nasheed, Gayyoom or President Waheed is unconditional and clouds their judgement of what is fundamentally right and wrong.

You can support the call for an election, an end to police brutality and call for a fully fledged independent inquiry into the events of the 7^th and 8^th February, but it does not necessarily make you biased towards MDP. In a similar vein, you can support negotiation, compromise and peaceful cooperation on national matters, but that does not mean you are biased towards DRP/PPM. You can also condemn indiscriminate attacks on police officers and protests that invoke or perpetrate violence, but that does not make you a ‘Baghee’ or ‘Traitor’.

I have been described as the “high priestess of colourless mentality”, which I embrace as a compliment. The term ‘colourless’ is a recently coined term in the wake of the political crisis in the Maldives. It is essentially a character description for those in the Maldives that want to create a common ground despite divided opinions.  I see that many members of the ‘colourless’ group(s) support one party or another, but are able to see beyond their party ‘colours’.  However, there are others who see being ‘colourless’ as “moral cowardice” or indifference. I disagree with this view because in every society experiencing a conflict there will always be a group that calls for peace and justice, be it partisan or non-partisan. I can see that there are thousands of Maldivians who are stuck in the middle of this conflict that just want the current conflict to be resolved peacefully.

If being colourless means refusal to follow political speculation blindly; analysing things from various angles and making a stand where you see problems, I would love to be thought of as the ‘high priestess of colourless mentality’!

Being colourless does not mean you are not allowed to have a political view. But, having a political view does not mean you stand idle when you see obvious wrongs either.

At the moment we are too busy throwing arguments at each other trying to justify the actions of the police, MDP or the current government, but unfortunately this does not reduce the immediate problems of lawlessness, violence and state legitimacy issues in our country. The example below shows the nonsensical manner in which a daunting and pressing issue such as ‘police brutality’ is likely to be discussed amongst us right now.

Discussion topic: Stop police brutality!

Participant A: You are only calling for an end to police brutality because you are biased towards Nasheed and you want MDP to be back in power. What about police brutality during Nasheed’s regime? Why should they be any different now?

Participant B: You should have complained if there was police violence during Nasheed’s regime. You shouldn’t have overthrown a democratically elected leader. Where is my vote? They were beating our brothers/fathers/sisters on 8^th February. They need to be stopped by all means. Jahaifiyya Jahaanan.

The above discussion is a typical nonsensical discussion over a topic where the call against police brutality should be agreeable to both in an ideal world. Both participants’ moral judgements are clearly clouded by their political allegiances. Participant A refuses to accept that police brutality is a problem, only because the brutality isn’t against his/her side; Participant B brushes off police brutality during Nasheed’s regime as irrelevant and encourages retaliation by all means. You cannot call for non-violence whilst saying you will resort to ‘all means’ to bring an end to non-violence.

If MDP or anyone else wants the rest of the country to join their ‘stop police brutality’ campaign for example, a good way to start would be by reaching out to the ordinary people without any infiltration of party propaganda. Maybe their own marches calling for good things should be less yellow and more Maldivian so that more people will vouch for their good messages. If people believe that police brutality should be stopped they should join any march against police brutality wearing a white t-shirt or red t-shirt with a placard stating I AM PROUD TO BE COLOURLESS BUT I DISAGREE WITH POLICE BRUTALITY or in other instances I SUPPORT DRP BUT I AM AGAINST POLICE BRUTALITY.

Our sense of rational thinking and good nature should not be clouded by our political inclinations. Be proud to have an opinion, but do not let it blind you to all other viewpoints!

Democracy, religion, human rights, ‘my vote’ and ‘justice’ – these are some of the justifications used by the protesters for their protests. Duty, ‘protection of civilians’, public order, ‘honour’, ‘self-defence’ are some of the justification used by the security forces for their ruthless tactics. But what are they really fighting each other for? Are they fighting for the ordinary man? Are they fighting for our right to live free from fear, intimidation and violence? Are they serving the best interests of our economy, stability and the social fabric of our country?

I believe it is power which lies at the core of this battle between the protesters and the police. It is really a proxy battle between politicians. The greed for power, the need to have control of power and the need to protect the power of the elite politicians is what the police and protesters are, by proxy, fighting for. Hiding behind police forces and protest groups, it is politicians that are really running this show. If the political leaders of this country, opposition groups or MDP genuinely want to cooperate they need to let go of their stubbornness and self-interest to bring a lasting resolution to the political crisis currently plaguing our country.

I have defended the police on many occasions and tried to look at the current situation from their perspective.  Our leaders have politicised the police and have made it impossible for them to remain impartial and apolitical. They are very much the pawns used between our politicians for their political game and they have evolved from a respected police force to a feared and hated group. People no longer know who they can trust for their safety and protection and have turned to their political parties, gangs and other networks for protection.

I find MDP’s hate campaign and indiscriminate attacks on members of the police force despicable, BUT that does not justify their disproportionate use of violence on protesters, MDP or other. Here I am not criticising the police’s standard crowd dispersion tactics; I am criticising about brutal beatings of protesters in broad daylight. Never have the police apologised to the public for brutal attacks on protesters on 8^th February. Not a single word of apology. I appreciate that they are still ‘investigating’ the brutal attacks by some members of the police force but the videos of men dressed in police uniforms beating citizens in various locations of Male’ is proof enough for a blind man to see that wrong was done by the police on 8^th February. Even a half-hearted apology would have maintained some public respect for them. I am disappointed in the police and the current government for failing to criticize and act where it is needed. I am disappointed that as I write this, police are continuing to clash with protesters and vigilantes in the middle of the night!

The current situation has put the police in a very difficult position. They are asked to serve a crisis government and maintain the status quo of the government, and at the same time defend themselves from public (mainly MDP and other street thug) attacks. We ask the police to remain impartial and apolitical but we are forcing them to choose a side. The more MDP supporters directly and indirectly provoke public animosity towards the police the more it will propel the police to have an ‘us vs. them’ mentality. Which side do you think they will choose for their own protection? Similarly, if the current government continues to hide behind the police and refuse to provide amicable solutions to the current situation, the public animosity towards the police will increase. Both sides are militarising, politicizing and separating the police from the rest of society.

As a solution to this current ‘police dilemma’, perhaps the police could start with an apology to the victims of the violence; make those who are responsible for the individual acts of violent behaviour accountable for their actions; create and make available some detailed guidelines for public assembly so that people are aware of their rights and their boundaries; and most importantly, reform and restart a campaign for better conduct and to gain public trust.

The sight of protests has become a daily part of our lives now and some Maldivian protests can be quite moving and fun spirited.  However, there are some who use organised protests to create panic, and incite violence and further animosity in the Maldives. In a similar vein, I ask MDP leaders whether they will apologise to the victims of their supporters’ violence and take some responsibility for the violence perpetrated in the name of their party?  If you denounce violence you have to denounce violence wholeheartedly from all sides, regardless of the motive. It is very easy to play the victim when you are overpowered and beaten; and I often find ‘victim’ videos of MDP protesters being hosed, man-handled, beaten or fighting with police officers. But these videos or pictures only capture the moment of their victimisation, without pretext or the protesters’ own role in the provocation of violence. In addition, whenever any video or photos show that violence was perpetrated by someone associated with MDP, MDP followers are very quick to deny and claim that the perpetrator was an unknown civilian, PPM supporter or policeman in disguise. Is this a tactic used to avoid responsibility for any negative consequences of their actions or gain public sympathy?

Violence is violence regardless of who commits it and I believe MDP can play a crucial role in preventing the on-going street violence in the country. I can show a hundred tweets, facebook messages and internet messages of MDP affiliated groups which send out instant, live messages to rile up protesters and create fear and animosity between protesters and the police. I am aware that more often than not, it is MDP vigilantes who are causing this violence and I am certain most protesters are out there for a genuine purpose. But playing the victim card does not always gain public sympathy if MDP members do not take some responsibility for the on-going conflicts in the streets.

MDP leaders should play a bigger role in diffusing this conflict by vehemently calling on the hundreds of people that go out in their name to protest peacefully; and by strongly condemning the destruction of public property and violent acts that have been perpetrated by the their supporters. That is what a good and responsible leadership is supposed to do. That is how you win the peoples’ respect.

I ask MDP leaders if they could be the bigger men (and women) if possible and lead by example? Is it too much to ask if they could return to the table to resolve this crisis which is scarring a generation of our nation? This might in fact tip the scale in their favour and win over the thousands of people who are in the centre of the battle between your protesters and the police.

As a final thought to both the police and the protesters, remember that when you beat that protester you are beating the ordinary man and when you hurl that brick or abuse at a police officer you are hurting the ordinary man. It is the ordinary man that needs to be protected and served. Our nation bleeds today because of both side’s stubbornness and inability to look beyond their differences. If we continue to hurl bricks and charge at each other, soon there will be no democracy to uphold, no civilians to protect and no country to save.

Over the past week I have had mixed emotions over the political unrest in my beloved country and I am certain I am not the only one who is frustrated and tired of the political chaos in the Maldives. It is as if we have learned nothing from 30 years of authoritarian rule.

Let me begin with the lead actor in this political drama – Mohamed Nasheed. He announced his resignation to the national media but the next day he claimed that he resigned at gun-point.

“There were guns all around me and they told me they wouldn’t hesitate to use them if I didn’t resign.” – Mohamed Nasheed

Nasheed’s statement that he was forced to resign at gunpoint stoked the political fires and greatly increased the emotional response to his overthrow, plunging the country into further violence and chaos. It also helped to publicise his ‘undemocratic, unjust overthrow’ around the world through the international media. A few days later he admitted that he was not literally at gunpoint, claiming he had used the term metaphorically. Last week Nasheed stated that the security forces were unable to shoot at the public protesters prior to his overthrow only because he refused to give them the key to the ‘gun’ storage – an attempt to create further animosity towards the security forces. I honestly don’t believe a single word that comes out of his mouth anymore. Yes, clearly he was forced to resign but my view is that his departure was inevitable.

None of us know the truth of what exactly happened on the day Nasheed resigned, and I suspect we will not know until a full and independent investigation is carried out. Yet we all choose to pick a side of the story. We only hear what Nasheed, President Waheed or other politicians say, and none of them are telling the truth in its entirety, with the exception of Umar Naseer and Reeko Moosa – two political personalities who are incapable of controlling their militant tongues and who are both obsessed with Gayyoom in their own ways.

Over the past three years Nasheed’s popularity has been dwindling and I doubt he would have had a chance in the 2013 elections until a few weeks ago. Fortunately for Nasheed, his forced resignation has actually increased his popularity and he is milking this opportunity to mobilise support for himself. What saddens me is that Nasheed and his party, MDP, are doing this at the expense of public order, public institutions and everything good about our country. They are undermining the very democratic principles that they think they are fighting for by bullying and threatening anyone that opposes them.

I understand MDP supporters and their MP’s are frustrated, but their anger has turned to militancy and a blatant disregard for anyone with a view different to their own. This country belongs to us all and the Parliament is a forum for debate and discussion by members elected by all of us. The blocking of the Parliament by MDP MP’s and the disrespect shown has, in my opinion, damaged our democracy because they have set a precedent here.  The picture below shows the scuffles that took place inside the Parliament building on the on 1^st March 2012. MDP MP’s hijacked the Parliament and blocked the President and the Speaker of the Parliament from entering.

Pure class shown by MDP MP’s – one has a bin on his head and another is sitting on top of the Speaker’s bench.

You can call President Waheed ‘Baghee’ or ‘Puppet’, but having read his international profile, namely his humanitarian work around the global and the crucial role he played in our own democratic process, I do believe he is a more capable candidate for the Presidency. Nasheed is a great activist and he can run a rally and organise fantastic protests, but he does not know how to run a country.  I don’t know whether President Waheed was responsible for the orchestration of the overthrow of Nasheed but his international profile speaks volumes. However, I do question his inability to answer many questions raised about the events of the overthrow. As the second in command of the country I expect him to be politically aware, so no doubt he would have known how Nasheed’s overthrow unfolded.

Currently Nasheed is doing a fantastic job in ensuring the Western media follows his one-sided story. I fail to understand why the Western media continues to glorify Nasheed’s profile and confuses his role and responsibilities as a nation’s leader with that of being an advocate for good causes.  Mark Lynas, Paul Roberts and many of Nasheed’s aides are reporting on the Maldives but their views are biased and fail to give any contextual analysis of the political reality of the Maldives. In one sense their bias is understandable as they work for Nasheed, but what I cannot accept and find disgraceful is that they fail to see or report their own biases; calling themselves reporters or advisors to the Maldives and telling half-truths to the international media.

I wonder how Western countries would react if their elected leader ordered the army to take hold of the Supreme Court, ordered the arrest of several opponents, and then arrested a senior judge and kept him detained for over 2 weeks despite continuous protests. Anywhere else in this world this would be considered outrageous, authoritarian and unconstitutional, and there would be international calls for their immediate resignation. There were calls for Bill Clinton’s resignation over a lie about an extramarital affair!

Let me make two things clear to anyone reading this:

1-      The Maldives is a Muslim country and religion has been used as a tool by both political sides on various occasions. When Nasheed says President Waheed and allies are empowering radical religious groups, do not be fooled. That is just one of the cards played to create polarisation and gain Western media attention, when in reality MDP themselves formed an alliance with the religious groups when they came to power. Yes, we do have a problem with religious extremism, but that is not the issue at the heart of this political unrest.

2-      Not every critic of Nasheed’s leadership and his party is a remnant of the past regime; not every remnant of the past regime is an opponent; and not every opponent is a bad advisor.

Few good things have come out of this whole political mess, but I was pleased to see the further empowerment of Maldivian women through this process, namely the MDP women’s peaceful protests. Any event or activity that empowers Maldivian women is a step forward and it was nice to see women take part in the democratic process, regardless of what side they were on. Women from all parties are clearly making their voices heard and when and if this political madness calms down I hope this spirit continues among Maldivian women. I was also pleased to see youth groups calling for peace through social media and organised events. Most importantly, I hope Nasheed’s overthrow sends a strong message to everyone that this country belongs to us all and that it will never be ruled by taking the law into one’s own hands. It is time we base our democracy on progressive policies instead of personalities.

Nascent, our democracy maybe, but I take comfort in the fact that we are all still fighting for democratic ideals. I just hope we don’t destroy our beautiful country in the process.

We can argue all day long, but President Mohamed Nasheed was removed by a coup d’état. That is a fact, plain and simple. What is not certain is the extent to which Nasheed’s removal was orchestrated in advance, or who was involved. Perhaps more importantly, the question of whether the overthrow of Nasheed is representative of the views of the general population or not, remains to be answered.  Other countries such as Pakistan and Turkey have had bloodless coups a number of times, where democratically elected leaders were overthrown in order to maintain public order and to avoid a potential civil war. More recently, the overthrow of Gaddafi, Mubarak and Ben Ali in the Arab Spring have taken place through popular revolts in the Middle East. Coups can be justified and a necessity in some circumstances. I got a sense that there was an atmosphere of widespread relief when Nasheed resigned but maybe I am wrong, but it must be remembered that the demonstrations leading up to 7^th February had been building for weeks, so this was not just a spur of the moment movement.

There is no right or wrong answer here; what has happened has happened and now is the time for reconciliation and national solidarity.

Instead, we see our politicians throwing clauses from our Constitution at each other, trying to legitimize and justify their actions. The Constitution was flouted by President Nasheed and MDP when they kept a senior judge arrested, despite nation-wide criticism, but is now held up as a sacred document by MDP, Nasheed and everyone else to argue that the overthrow was unconstitutional! The truth of the matter is MDP or the opposition parties have no respect for the Constitution and have used the law as a tool to delegitimize each other time and time again.

As my last article suggested, I have great respect for Nasheed and I would welcome his return to politics. However, I, along with many others, was disappointed in the way he turned defeat into a cause for nationwide violence in our country. Violence was incited, invoked and aggravated by MDP supporters and all MDP factions should ask themselves, with honesty and without any political bias, whether they could have done more to stop the violence that occurred across the country on 8^th February? It is a democratic and a positive thing to go out and protest in support of your party and beliefs, but NOT at the expense of public order, public buildings and the safety of people. In islands where infrastructure is still limited, what is there to gain by burning public buildings? I strongly condemn people who damage the country’s infrastructure in their political zeal.

I do not believe the security forces (MNDF and state police) are our enemies. Every single one of us probably has a relative or friend working in the Maldives National Defence Force or the Police. They are victims of this political unrest as much as any one of us and have been used as pawns by our politicians. Holding them solely responsible for reacting to the hoards of angry protesters – MDP or the opposition – as per their job role, and for the failures of the law-making bodies, is excessive. I am not saying that they shouldn’t be held accountable for their actions, but I do think the indiscriminate attacks on members of the security forces, their offices and the ongoing hate campaign against them is unnecessary.

Having said that, the security forces in the country have a responsibility to answer to the people for the use of excessive force, violent language and brutal attacks on MDP members (and their head office), wherever and whenever it occurred this week, as seen in the various videos and photographs circulating on the internet. I do appreciate that a country’s security force plays a crucial role in maintaining law and order, but they themselves are not above the law. Anyone who has seen the violent incidents of the last few days would question the motives and compassion of the security forces. On the day of the most gruesome violence it was hard to distinguish who was more of a thug! Security forces now have a responsibility to regain the public’s trust and have some real soul-searching to do.

In fact, maybe we all have some soul-searching to do.

For too long we have been manipulated by politicians for their political agendas. We need to remove our political party hats and think of what is best for the country and not for a particular political party or ideology. The only thing standing between the current situation and our country’s stability is YOU. You have the power to decide the fate of our country, not a few politicians who are squabbling over power. What makes Nasheed’s supporters think that even if Nasheed and MDP are reinstated (through demonstrations or any other means) our problem of disunity will be sorted? Do they think the opposition will just walk away? Similarly, what makes supporters of the opposition think they will achieve anything by sidelining MDP and their supporters from Maldivian politics? Our politicians need to stop squabbling over trivial matters and accept that there are Maldivians who admire Gayyoom and Nasheed. Clearly Nasheed’s regime sold themselves short, because even after 30 years of corruption and repression by Gayyoom’s regime, Nasheed and the MDP failed to gain an outright majority in parliament or within the country’s population. Nasheed was right when he recently stated that “it can take years to stamp out the lingering remnants of past regimes”, and so we need to work with such ‘remnants’. We need to judge, praise and back our politicians based on what they can offer to develop our economy, deliver political stability and solve social problems; not on whether they are remnants of Gayyoom’s regime or Nasheed’s regime. We need to accept that there is no majority in the country at present and learn to live and progress with divided opinions. This, my fellow countrymen, is the essence of democracy.

We will never be in peace if we keep suggesting short term solutions to a long term problem. By having a snap election and by halting all government operations we will achieve nothing. Both parties need to sit down and negotiate a re-election in due course (in 6 months, perhaps), when we have achieved some stability. I fully support Nasheed’s suggestion to have a re-election, but not in two months, as he demands. Elections have a propensity to cause violence and should be undertaken with the proper state apparatus in place and not hastily. The current President needs to ensure that an election takes place in due course to avoid further conflict. Dr. Waheed should remember that what we have at the moment is only a crisis government and not a government of the people. If civil resistance is the opted means of protest by the majority of people, please let it be non-violent. All factions within the political system have gravely disappointed us and have a lot to prove of themselves now. In due time, WE, the citizens of the country, will decide who will govern us by a free and fair election. The power of the ballot will speak for itself.