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’.