Does it matter if Nasheed has any ambitions?

I don’t think so. But he has made clear he has none. Let us believe him. He has talked about this on more than one occasion.

In any case, since it is not illegal or unconstitutional to have such an ambition, what is the big deal? I think the more people we have who have such aspirations, the better for our nation. Why? Because those who have such aspirations, I hope, would conduct themselves with that in mind. If that is the case, the nation can only benefit as we see more and more qualified leaders who can inspire younger generations by example.

For me, Nasheed is an excellent potential candidate. I believe he would do much better than Qasim. But Nasheed is unlikely to stand against Qayyoom, not right now anyway. But I hope that when the time came, he would reconsider. Should Qasim win the next election, I believe that Nasheed is the only person who can unseat Qasim.

Maldives has never mixed governance with business – let’s keep it that way

Qasim’s decision to contest the presidential elections may create bad history. The Maldivians have so far been sensible enough not to mix governance with business. Thanks to Qasim, such principles and values are to be a thing of the past.

One has to be aware that what really makes a nation great is also adhering to the unwritten rules – the conventions, the values and the principles. Rule of law must prevail; but so must moral and ethical conduct. It is not always possible to write down all such rules. They are enforced by a combination of an individual’s conscience and the collective conscience of the society as a whole.

As an individual, each of us owes it to our nation to uphold those timeless values and principles. As a society, we owe it to our future generations to deliver such values and principles intact.

Qasim v Shinawatra

Thaksin Shinawatra, a successful Thai businessman, entered politics in 1994 by joining the Phalang Dharma Party.

Qasim Ibrahim, a successful Maldivian businessman, entered politics over fifteen years ago, not by joining a party, since there were none, but by attacking Qayyoom’s government at every opportunity. Yet, when he came face to face with Qayyoom, there was no better person on earth for Qasim. In 2005 he was incarcerated as a suspect involved in an alleged coup attempt against Qayyoom. While denying involvement in any coup attempt, he admitted to illegally financing the election campaigns of several MPs and Special MPs. Before the due process in law was completed against Qasim, he was pardoned by Qayyoom. Later Qasim joined Qayyoom’s party, DRP, and accepted the posts of Minister for Finance, and Governor of the Central Bank. Qasim wasted no time; he quickly grabbed the opportunity to make his name indelible by issuing a new Rf. 500 currency note with his signature on.

Thaksin Shinawatra later founded the Thai Rak Thai (TRT) party in 1998. Qasim, while remaining a member of Qayyoom’s party and cabinet, later got a group of his trusted comrades to form a political party. Having publicly declared his ostensible support to Qayyoom and DRP at its second national congress as the party's second Deputy Leader, Qasim quit Qayyoom’s cabinet and DRP the very next day and joined the newly established party of his friends, and wasted no time in declaring his intentions to run for president.

Shinawatra became the Prime Minister in 2001. He was re-elected in 2005. But he was frequently accused of corruption, authoritarianism and religious desecration. It was alleged that conflicts of interest made him unfit for being the head of government. He also abused the loopholes in law to protect his interests. He was also known to be hostile to the press. To top it all, he was allegedly guilty of lèse-majesté, being accused of having sold national assets to foreign investors. In late 2006, he was overthrown in a bloodless coup by the military while he was travelling overseas.

Qayyoom's campaign far from convincing

DRP’s presidential nominee Maumoon Abdul Qayyoom and his running mate Ahmed Thasmeen Ali’s launching of their campaign on 08.08.08 was slick in design but flabby in execution.

On the substantive side, the message - aa usminthakakah (for newer heights) - was not that convincing or effective either. Neither Qayyoom’s speech nor Thasmeen’s was the most inspiring I have seen.

Overall, the ceremony showed a lack of appreciation of the country’s political mood. Signs of fatigue, perhaps? The fresh ideas that I expected never came across.

If they can’t raise their bar, rivals should not find it too difficult to leap over it.

The president of Aneh Dhivehi Raajje accuses Jumhooree Party of bribery

The president of Aneh Dhivehiraajje, Anni has said that his campaign for the next presidential election would be clean. Earlier this year, speaking to reporters at a press event held to publicise the policies of MDP primaries candidates on April 2, Anni had already said that he would publish the financial details of his primaries campaign. This though is yet to happen.

Anni’s remarks on this issue are today aimed at Jumhooree Party which is now known as the ‘viyafaariveringe party’ (the businessmen’s party) dominated by businessmen. Allegations that the Jumhooree Party is using bribery and corruption to ‘win’ votes are widespread. Earlier this week, DRP also accused Jumhooree Party of bribing MPs. The party denies these allegations.

Just what does Jumhooree Party stand for?

Dr Munawwar’s resignation as President of MDP is not surprising. Thanks to Anni’s autocratic style, MDP’s marginalization has come much earlier than many people had anticipated.

Munawwar's resignation paves the way for him to pledge allegiance to Qasim. This is not surprising either. What drives him are money and vengeance. Munawwar’s cupidity for money became apparent when he, while holding the office of Attorney General, formed a company with some others, supposedly to build a tourist resort in Addu. For Munawwar, Qasim is a like-minded person. Qasim is also well-known for his ability to beguile people into his anti-Qayyoom rhetoric since as early as the 1990s. Now that he has his own party and is out to avenge Qayyoom for the ‘VIP treatment’ at Dhoonidhoo following the August 12-13 failed coup attempt, what better person for Munawwar to go into an alliance with?

I keep on asking myself: why should people believe in the Jumhooree Party? I could not think of anything. To being with, I do not know what they stand for, other than of course the obvious motive of vengeance against Qayyoom. They did not have to declare this. It is too apparent.

Why is it a 'Jumhooree' Party anyway? The name of a party has certain connotations. MDP says their name symbolizes democracy. DRP says theirs shows they are the party of the people. Adhaalath’s name is to indicate that they are for justice. But what is Jumhooree Party? Are we fighting for independence against the British colonialism, so that we can become a republic after independence? I won’t be surprised then if I hear about another party, a Unionist Party!

For me, therefore, there is only one and only one reason for the existence of the Jumhooree Party, and that is, to wield money to promote the businesses of their key individual members. They cannot afford to see any more new business persons emerge under the free enterprise policies in the country to challenge their status.

Congratulations to Shihab and Aneesa

Having been given the opportunity to preside over just one sitting of the Majlis, Hassan Afeef (Th – MDP) did not waste any time to use (or abuse?) the authority of the Speaker’s chair - following Qasim Ibrahim's footsteps, no doubt. Whatever the grounds, Afeef voided yesterday’s vote which elected Ahmed Zahir (P – DRP) as the interim Majlis Speaker. The legality of the decision to void yesterday's vote is highly questionable. A walk out today by DRP MPs could have identified the culprits who had sold their conscience.

But let’s not take anything away from Mohamed Shihab (JP – Malé). Congratulations to him and Aneesa (M – DRP). Commiserations to Zahir and Nazim (M – PA).

Much can be read into this development. Quite obviously, DRP’s candidate has been beaten, despite the presence of Presidential Members. This is a great victory for the Jumhooree Party. Whether or not the same can be said about MDP is questionable since MDP’s unofficial presidential candidate, Anni’s earlier position that the Speaker should be from the majority party (DRP) was later changed due to opposition by its parliamentary group led by Afeef.

All signs are that the money behind JP is being put to ‘good use’. Unfortunately for the Maldives, it is unlikely that anything can be done, at least in the Majlis, to stop the plutocrats taking over the country, thanks to DRP’s failure to foresee what was coming. Unfortunately, if the plutocrats succeed, it is not DRP that loses, but the country as a whole.

Section 119 must be revisited

On Thursday, August 7th, 2008, I wrote an article highlighting the fact that as Republican Party’s prospective presumptive presidential nominee, Qasim Ibrahim presided over the proceedings of the Special Majlis as Speaker on June 26th, 2008, there was a conflict of interest. On Friday, August 8th, I expressed further concern over this issue, i.e. the provision in the constitution which allows the president to do business if he or she is ‘not actively engaged’ in it. The same day an article by the Social Liberal Party’s presidential nominee, Ibrahim Ismail (Ibra), alluded to the same issue. On Saturday, August 9th, I wrote another article on the same issue. Today, August 11th, Minister for Legal Reform, Mohamed Nasheed has written about the same issue.

In my articles, I highlighted the fact that Qasim did not allow a debate on this issue when it was incumbent on him to do so. Thanks to his announcement about his intention to run for president, we now know why, and also why he was so keen to be elected Speaker of the Special Majlis.

I also read through the comments on Ibra’s article on the constitution. One person, a pseudonymous author, Center-right, asked Ibra some interesting questions: “1. Which do you prefer in the constitution - raeesakah hunna meehaku 'viyafaarieh kohgen nuvaane' or 'viyafaarieh hingumugai amalee gothun baiverivegen nuvaane'? 2. I hear Gasim asked you to insert that amendment. True? 3. Would you agree that amendment should have been debated because it was such an important and substantial issue?” To which Ibra has replied: “I think your questions deserve a separate post as answer. I will write one when I have a bit of time (a scarce commodity these days!)” Let us see what Ibra has to say. We need to know who was (or were) responsible for this.

Minister Nasheed’s article further highlights the gravity of this situation. Thanks to this particular provision, four years of sincere work by many suddenly threatens to look not worth a plug nickel. Minister Nasheed says that he is not going to be silent on this. I commend him for that.

Minister Nasheed, on behalf of those against a plutocratic dictatorship, can begin by proposing a revisit to section 119 which needs to be amended as it was originally passed by the Special Majlis. I know it may be impossible to do this in the Majlis because those who sneaked in the provision in question into the constitution simply will not allow the three-quarters majority of the whole house required under section 261 of the constitution.

Yet, this must be initiated, if not by the government, by the people, through letters, petitions, peaceful demonstrations and the like. Let us not let our country slide backwards.

Not to follow Qasim’s footsteps

The very first walk-out by a group of Special MPs towards the end of 2004 was about Qasim Ibrahim who wanted to be elected Speaker of the Special Majlis. The issue was whether to vote by a secret ballot (so that, it was rumoured, those who did not have the audacity to vote Qasim openly for whatever reasons could vote him), or whether to vote by a show of hands, which was the Majlis convention.

Thanks to technology, today’s election of the Speaker of the Majlis was not affected in that way. But the abrupt ending of the Majlis indicates that potential pitfalls may lie ahead.

For a small nation, we cannot make progress if we allow our country to fall into political fragmentations. The Majlis has enormous responsibilities in this regard.

Has money prevailed over democracy?

It is often described that the US president is the most powerful person on earth.

In the Maldives, the most powerful person, under the 1998 constitution was, and under constitution ratified on August 7th, 2008 is, the president. People say that these two documents compared, the latter is better in every way.

But let us compare one issue. Under the 1998 constitution, the president cannot, under section 45, engage in business. This is a principle upheld in most democracies (and even in what may be described as not-so-democratic countries) because being the most powerful person in the country and being simultaneously able to do business is wrong in every way. It is unethical, immoral and creates so much conflict of interest that he cannot be checked. In the 2008 constitution, this important principle is absent, or severely compromised. Section 119 allows the president to do business if he is ‘not actively engaged’. What this means of course is yet to be tested. But it is clear that section 119 could open up a Pandora’s box.

The big question then is how did this happen despite all the yearning for democratic ideals? As a concerned person, I believe that the people of Maldives must be informed of the reasons behind this backward step. Up to the last sitting of the Special Majlis, the provision did not allow the president to do business. This was how the Special Majlis passed that provision. It was sneaked in by the backdoor at the eleventh hour. Despite several points of order by Special MPs, including the Deputy Speaker Shaheen Hameed, the Speaker did not open the issue up for debate. So who was responsible for sneaking that ‘amendment’ in or whose initiative was it? Why was it not opened up for debate? There is ground for suspicion of foul play.

One thing clear though is that if that provision remained as it was originally passed by the Special Majlis, i.e. that the president cannot do business, Qasim Ibrahim, the Speaker of the Special Majlis, whose denial to debate this substantive ‘amendment’ may have caused this back-ward step in democracy, he would not have been able to say today that ‘if the Republican Party nominates me as their presidential candidate, I will run for president’.

Has Diyana Saeed compromised her conscience?

Diyana Saeed was one of the Special MPs who took points of order to protest against Qasim’s dictatorial conduct in the Special Majlis.

In an intervention against Qasim on 26 June 2008, Diyana Saeed said: ‘… Honorable Speaker [Qasim], there are also proposed amendments which can change the meaning of certain provisions. For example, the provision that the President ‘cannot engage in business’, which we have passed earlier, now says that the President ‘cannot actively engage in business’. The meaning of these two are different. It was having considered the meanings [of the provisions] that we have passed the sections. … There are amendments that can and that cannot be accepted. So, since I believe that these [amendments] must be put to vote individually, I state for the purposes of record, that I will not participate in a vote which you put to us otherwise.’

Diyana’s intervention was to demonstrate that she stood on a principle which is, that those who are engaged in business must not hold the office of president. Unfortunately today she appears to have abandoned such principles. Today, she is standing shoulder to shoulder with the very kind of person she fought to prevent from holding the office of president. It is quite clear that she has succumbed to protect the business interests of her husband, Abdulla Jabir, who himself seems to be moving around like a headless chicken. It appears that Diyana has, for whatever reasons, compromised her principles, in favour of supporting someone who ‘cannot actively engage in business’ to run for president. What a shame.

Finally Qasim tells a truth

Qasim Ibrahim, finally, admits that he is interested to contest the upcoming presidential polls. I congratulate him for plucking up the courage to publicly concede that he’s not been honest with the public todate about his intentions. It’s been at least a decade since rumours began spreading about his intention to run for president. So how many times would he have lied to us todate simply on this matter?

As for Qasim’s credentials, we all have seen the manner in which he thought he made himself eligible under the new constitution to hold the office of president. Having disregarded numerous points of order, he simply bulldozed through the voting. Special MPs protests were vociferous, yet to no avail. Qasim simply gave a deaf ear to their concerns. Was one of those issues about a provision in which Qasim had a vested interest? Absolutely (section 119)!

Qasim’s credentials are many, but not so diverse. They can be categorized as follows: commercial assets, and liabilities, and failures. If the people of the Maldives are to consider these credentials against those of any other candidate, no one is more qualified than him to be elected. In fact, even if all the other candidates get together, their combined credentials would not even compare with those of his.

So I wish Qasim well in his apparently long-held ambition. After all, this is also his country, and therefore he has every right to run for president, and to hold that office, provided that the constitution so allows.

Ratification and beyond

The new constitution is (or the amendments to the 1998 constitution are?) to be ratified tomorrow, the 7th of August 2008, Insha Allah.

No doubt, there are those of us who would still want to live in the past. Some others may want to focus on the future. There may also be some who would want to keep an open mind.

In any case, the Maldives will be a new Maldives after the ratification. How the new Maldives will look like depends much on how the three branches of power, the executive, the legislature, and the judiciary conduct themselves. How each branch conducts itself depends on the integrity and values upheld by the individuals who make-up that branch as well as on the integrity and values upheld by that branch as an institution. Much also depends on the attitude adopted by each of these branches when interacting with each other.

A too confrontational attitude can result in frustration and hostility. Such a situation can have far reaching implications on the work of these institutions and consequently on the socio-economic development of the country.

Such a scenario is more likely if the party to which the head of the executive belongs does not have a majority of seats in the legislature, and in a situation where the political atmosphere is charged. It may not be untrue to describe the current political atmosphere in the Maldives as highly charged.

I, as a concerned person, appeal to our leaders to exercise restraint, to ensure a smooth transition to the new system. I am full of hope and optimism that our leaders would demonstrate integrity, and conduct themselves with dignity.

‘Cabinet Debacle and 116’ – farce or deceit?

Following the 9/11 attacks on the US, President Bush proposed and the Congress passed legislation to create the Department of Homeland Security in late 2002. In the UK, the Home Office was split in early 2007 into two departments, the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice, both to be headed by a Secretary of State. Here, such an action by the government does not require legislation. In Canada, the process is based on the Westminster model.

The two specific examples above are from the two systems of government often looked up to for inspiration for democratic governance. So, when Social Liberal Party’s presidential nominee, Ibrahim Ismail (Ibra) says that the Canadian ‘consultant, Professor Schmeiser, advised strongly that in any democracy, be it Presidential or Parliamentary system of government, the ultimate power to create cabinet posts lies with the Parliament’, either or both of them are being economical with the truth. If the Professor has ‘advised strongly’ here, he may well have done so on other issues. When you ‘advise strongly’ on such an issue, your impartiality as a consultant is questionable.

So, ‘a simple and innocent oversight [failing to mark section 116 in yellow highlight as substantially changed] by those who did the secretarial work’ appears to be more than a simple and innocent oversight. How can Ibra’s conscience be clear when he places the blame on the poor ‘those who did the secretarial work’?

Finally, by Ibra’s own admission, he and the other like-minded MPs in the Special Majlis during the past four years have only been motivated by personal vendetta against Qayyoom; so they all have a blind spot on issues beyond ‘the removal of Qayyoom’. Ibra writes:

“I have always maintained that Qayyoom can only be brought down by outsmarting him … I have focused on removing his powers bit by bit …. Every piece of legislation that we have passed has taken something away from him. The Amended Constitution will be the crown jewel in the process. That is why I have given every single minute of my time to the Constitution. I believe that Qayyoom’s armour has been split right down the middle now and he is at his most vulnerable.”

However, the provisions in section 116 which allows the Majlis to have a say when a serving president creates a government ministry seems, on face value, not an unreasonable way to keep his powers in check (albeit only an inadvertent outcome insofar as Ibra and the other like-minded MPs are concerned). But the devil in it, if there is one, may become visible when the provision is put into operation.

Is Ibra a jack of all trades?

On Friday unofficial presidential candidate Ibrahim Isamil (Ibra) implied, having earlier said otherwise, that President Qayyoom cannot run for president under the draft constitution whose ratification is reportedly imminent. Speaking on DhiFM’s One-to-one programme, he said that the draft constitution ‘is not a new constitution’. He said that ‘qaumeh gai iru iru kolhaa qaanoon asaasee aleh nuvaane. 1932 gai Dhivehi Raajjeygai qaanoon asaasee ekulavaalevunu hisaabun feshigen e qaanoon asaasee mi othee’ (‘a country does not replace a constitution …. Since a constitution was formulated in 1932, it is that constitution which exists today’).

Ibra’s interpretation makes me cringe. It is glaringly obvious that he has no grasp of constitutional (and legal) principles or knowledge about constitutional history elsewhere. It is embarrassing that he has chosen to speak on such an important matter in spite of being so ill-informed about it.

Watch this space for a concise analysis of whether or not the draft constitution may be interpreted as revised or as replacing the existing constitution.

Dr Shaheed blames the Majlis - again!

Sometimes it seems as if Dr Shaheed's mouth functions faster than his brain. He appears to have a habit of speaking before thinking. What may be taken as an example is the instance where he appeared to blame the People's Majlis for 'the lack of democracy' in the country. Naturally, the reaction by the MPs was overwhelming; a group of them proposed a motion of no-confidence against him. Just before the motion was to be debated at the Majlis, he resigned from his ministerial post. He maintains that his remarks were taken out of context and that his resignation had nothing to do with the proposed motion. But it would appear otherwise.

What may appear as yet another instance of his mouth functioning faster than his brain, he now accuses the Majlis of failing to hold the government accountable on financial matters. If the MPs react to this, he is likely to yet again try to wriggle free by claiming that his remarks are being misinterpreted.

Dr Shaheed is an important character who plays a significant part in the ongoing democratization process. But, what appears to be his penchant for undermining the integrity and credibility of the country's whole legislature is an issue that everyone must be concerned about.

Looking beyond the 48-hour week

A number of commentators, including Nasheed, Dr Shareef, and Himeyn Inqilaab, have written about the new Employment Act and its possible impact on tourism workers.

We must recognize that MATI is an industry organization, an association of investors in tourism, an employers' association. Naturally then its primary objective would be to promote their interests. It should therefore be no surprise to anyone when MATI expresses concerns it may have over amending the Employment Act.

We must also recognize that in a largely free enterprise economy, it is up to employees' associations to serve the interests of employees. The responsibility of the government of the time would be to endeavour to strike a balance between the conflicting interests of the two sides. While one must admit that therefore a perfect balance may not be always possible, labour law must be allowed to evolve to address any issues that may arise in the future.

Any disadvantages that the tourism industry may experience as a consequence of extending the 48-hour week to tourism workers may be short-term. If nothing else changes, any disadvantages are likely to be confined at micro-level, reflected in minor shrinks in the bottom line. An advantage, from a long-term perspective, would be that tourism employers would want to find ways to make up for the increase in their wage bill.

But this increase could not come at a worse time. In the present circumstances, tourism proceeds may begin to decline in the near future as a potential recession looms over the western hemisphere. Some economists predict that this may be the worst economic downturn in recent decades. The most optimistic of them hope that it would last three years.

Add to this, the imminent recession in Europe and the unprecedented over-investment in the tourism industry is likely to have both short and long term impacts at macroeconomic level. In the short to medium term, the pressure on foreign exchange reserves may induce a devaluation of the Rufiyaa exacerbating the already run-away inflation. In the long run, average profits may begin a downward trend as tourism operators struggle to fill up the excess capacity at present prices.

Some are suggesting reducing prices and attracting more mid-market to budget travellers. This may be another mistake since Maldives cannot compete with other low-cost destinations offering like products, though not necessarily similar products. For the Maldives, a better strategy may be to increase the focus on mid to upper market which may be less likely to be affected by the vagaries of the economic cycle.

Should we allow foreigners to meddle in politics in our country?

I am really concerned about MDP's policy of inviting foreigners to campaign for them. I am afraid that it may give the opportunity to foreigners to meddle in politics in our country. I am worried that it may lead to a proliferation of such invitations to foreigners.

I believe that getting foreign governments and international organizations to put pressure on our government to stay on course to complete the democratic reform process is acceptable. But getting foreign individuals, whether businesspersons or representatives of foreign governments, to in effect campaign for and endorse a particular party and candidate is a step too far. I believe that MDP has taken a step too far by getting a foreign businessman and a foreign politician to campaign for and endorse MDP and Anni.

Why is MDP pursuing this policy? It may be because MDP is not confident enough to be able to defeat Qayyoom and to win the most seats in the Majlis without the help of foreigners. This is not a message I want to see coming from the party who claim that their candidate will be the next president of the country and that they will win the most seats in the next general elections.