Maldives Gets a Second Chance at Democracy

By securing the largest vote-share in the September 7 election, deposed President Mohamed Nasheed has re-established his popular credentials. But he still has to complete an uphill trek before he can move back into the Muliaage

Nineteen months after their first democratically elected leader was coerced out of office, on September 7, the people of Maldives returned to the hustings once again to take a second shot at democracy. They came in large numbers — voter turnout was at an impressive 88 per cent — and reinforced their mandate in favour of deposed President Mohamed Nasheed. The charismatic leader who first came to power in 2008 after defeating Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, Asia’s longest serving autocract, this time received  an impressive 45.45 per cent of the votes. Former Minister and Mr Gayoom’s half-brother Abdulla Yameen came in second with 25.35 per cent votes, edging past business tycoon Gasim Ibrahim, who secured 24.07 per cent, while incumbent President Mohamed Waheed trailed far behind with 5.13 per cent of votes. However, even though Mr Nasheed has the largest vote-share, it still falls about five per cent (or approximate 10,000 votes) short of the stipulated 50 per cent-plus-one vote minimum needed to take charge. And so, on September 28, Mr Nasheed will face Mr Yameen in an electoral run-off.

This one will be a close call. Unlike in the first round of polling where it was a foregone conclusion that Mr Nasheed, arguably Maldives’s most popular leader, will secure the largest vote bloc, the dynamics change significantly in the second round as the non-Nasheed votes will tend to coalesce in favour of Mr Yameen. In this context that Mr Gasim, supposedly the country’s richest man, may emerge as the king-maker because his vote-share —considered to be the most transferable — could go either way.

If Mr Gasim throws his weight in favour of Mr Nasheed, as he had done back in 2008, the former President will have a strong chance of returning to power. However, Mr Gasim already has a loose (although some say reluctant) alliance of sorts with Mr Yameen. The two reportedly also have some commercial joint ventures planned together as well as share the other’s view of Maldives as a staunchly Islamic nation. If they do come together in the second round, Mr Nasheed will have a tough battle ahead of him as the Yameen-Gasim vote-share combine just about makes it to the 50 per cent mark. In such a situation, Mr Nasheed will absolutely have to win over the five per cent that went to Mr Waheed in the first round.

This is not an entirely unimaginable prospect. Mr Waheed contested as an independent candidate but represented a coalition of two small political outfits alongside two major players, the Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party and the religious Adhaalath Party. It is unlikely that Mr Nasheed with win over AP supporters but he should be able to convert the significant support base of the DRP — a party that he believes is ideologically most similar to his own MDP.

Ultimately, though, these are all backhand calculations and unless more details emerge about pre-poll alliances it is difficult to make a detailed assessment. As for New Delhi, it would, of course, like to see Mr Nasheed return to power not only because he is an avowed friend of India but also because he is Maldives’s best bet for a stable and prosperous future which again is in India’s interests given the archipelago’s strategic location in the Indian Ocean region. After all, Mr Nasheed was the only presidential candidate who had a clear and detailed policy blueprint for the country.

Having initially bungled its response to the crisis in Male last year, New Delhi has since been able to get its act together. The Indian High Commission in Male did well to give refuge to Mr Nasheed earlier this year.India also worked with the US and other international partners to ensure that Mr Nasheed could fight the election in the first place — a major achievement given that the incumbent regime tried repeatedly to put him behind bars.  

(This article was published in the op-ed section of The Pioneer on September 13, 2013)

Nasheed pins hope on democracy

President of Maldives Mohamed Nasheed, ousted in a coup, says an early election is the only solution

On the intervening night of February 6 and 7, the first democratically-elected President of Maldives, Mr Mohamed Nasheed, was ousted from power in a military coup engineered by those loyal to his Islamist predecessor, Mr Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, the autocrat who ruled the archipelago for three decades. In the months since, Mr Gayoom has returned to the Maldives, his children and loyaltists have taken up high positions in the new Government while Mr Nasheed continues to campaign extensively for a fresh election to restore democracy.

Recently, he was in India to build greater support for his movement and convince New Delhi that wisdom lies in supporting him. He spoke to The Pioneer about the coup that cost him his presidency, how he plans to return to power, the relationship he hopes to build with India and the extent of the much talked about Chinese ‘influence’ on Maldives. The following are excerpts from the interview:

Q: The exact order of events leading up to the coup in February still remains hazy. Please take us through that night and the previous day as it happened.

A: On February 6, top battalions of riot police, without command and without control, left the barracks and went to the MDP Assembly home, attacked our party workers and ransacked the place. Then they went into the military headquarters and sat in front of it. There were about 70 of them. The Chief of Police told me to see if the military could restrain them. So I rang the military around 11.30 pm and they said ‘yes’. But by 5 am the next day, nothing had been done.

So I went to see what was going on. When I went there I saw that the place was deserted except for the Generals who were all in plainclothes and about 200 soldiers. Everybody else was on leave, I was told. The ones who were there were clearly in league with the riotous police, and by evening their numbers had swelled to about 500. These 500 people wanted to storm the military headquarters while I was in there.

I was just inches away from being mobbed, so I told them to take me to the President’s office and that I would resign there. In fact, I was planning to see if I could escape from that place. So they escorted me to the President’s office and the situation there was no different. The military and the police were everywhere. I was given a piece of paper and I wrote my resignation note. They told me to go out on TV. Then, afterwards, they took me to the President’s residence and told me to stay there for three days.

I wasn’t allowed to speak to anyone but still around seven that evening I was able to call upon the more loyal elements in the military and slip out of there. Then, I went to my family residence where I almost collapsed from exhaustion. The next day I called my party together and we went public with my side of the story. If this wasn’t a coup, then I am yet to understand what is a coup.

Q: Were you expecting this coup?

A: Two weeks prior to this, the intelligence chief was removed from his post and he had written to me a seven-page letter saying that this was in the brewing. So, yes, I was aware of this and many such schemings by the old regime trying to get a hold on us.

Q: How difficult do you think it will now be to remove the new Government, given that it is packed with members who are deeply entrenched in the system?

A: Well, the more time we give them without an election, the more entrenched they become. But I think if we have an election, we will win. The people of Maldives have seen what has happened to us, they know the truth.

You know, I was first elected as secretary of a municipal ward in Male and the Government arrested me soon after. Then, the people elected me as their MP from Male and again the Government arrested me. Now that the the people have elected me as their President, this has happened. The people understand what is going on. Also, we may think that these Generals have a lot of power and support, but ordinary people detest that kind of authoritarian power.

Q: Do you think if elections are held too soon there will be violence?

A: I think if you don’t have elections soon, then there will be violence. I always believe that asking the people is the proper way of consolidating democracy. I remember there being elections in Serbia while it was bombed; in Sri Lanka through 25 years of conflict — that’s why the Government there has survived. Now, take the example of Nicaragua, Honduras and El Salvadore, where they didn’t have elections, and it has been much more difficult for those countries to come out of the cycle of violence.

Q: How do you think Maldives can shake off its dictatorial past?

A: It is easy to remove a dictator but it is much more difficult to flush out the remnants of dictatorship. Still, one of the ways to do it is through elections. So we have parliamentary elections, local council elections, school elections, board elections — the more the participation of the people, the more entrenched the democracy.

Q: If you return to power, what are the steps you will take to avoid such a situation from happening again?

A: We need to reform the judiciary, the military and the police. For instance, within the police we should have more community policing and less of such riot police with heavy gear and weapons. The Maldives is a small country, we don’t need this. We need to put in place proper checks and balances to avoid slips from democratic gains.

Q: How do you think India has responded to the crisis?

A: I think India dropped a catch initially, but in hindsight I understand its limitations in the region. It cannot come across as the ‘Big Brother’. If it did, in the Maldives for instance, Mr Gayoom would say that India is a bully. So it has to be mindful of that. Of course, in my frustration I wanted India to be more robust in action, but as someone who has been in Government I understand the Prime Minister’s difficulties.

Also, India has been working hard since then, much of it behind the scene. We hope that the establishment as a whole will work on the issue; that the Indian Government’s agencies, not necessarily the politicians, will take this forward. Still, I must say that often I find it is the politicians who have the answers and not the bureaucrats.

Q: Did you reach out to India?

A: Yes, my National Security Adviser got in touch with New Delhi, but I don’t think there was anything that could have been done at that time. I think India was hasty in recognising the new Government, but that’s about it.

Q: What about your Government’s dealings with the Chinese? What kind of influence does Beijing wield in Male?

A: We have never had any dealings with the Chinese Government. When we came into power we had a defence agreement with the Chinese Government that needed renewal. It had been sitting on my desk for many months and I had not signed that document.

I don’t know how receptive the Chinese are towards us but we are very clear about whom we want to be friends with. I am very clear about how we should be running our foreign policy. It’s to get hold of a friend and be nice to that friend. We have chosen India as our friend and that choice is not dependent on our own personal fortunes, but on the principles that we, as a country, want to nurture.

(This article was published in the Op-ed section of The Pioneer on April 26, 2012.)

Turbulence in Indian Ocean

Coup rocks political stability in Maldives as Islamists gain strength

"Be vigilant of what not only might happen in the Indian peninsula, in the islands but also of what may happen in the wider Indian Ocean,” then President of Maldives Mohamed Nasheed had warned cadet officers at the Sri Lanka Military Academy on December 27, 2011. His words rang true on Tuesday when mutinous factions within the police and the Army joined hands to remove him, the country’s first democratically elected President, from power.

Since Mr Nasheed announced his resignation on Tuesday evening, he has been held by the military at an undisclosed location, reportedly against his will, while his former Vice President Mohamed Waheed Hassan Manik, has positioned himself at the helm of affairs. He is expected to preside over a national unity Government until the end of the ongoing presidential term in 2013 after which general election are supposed to be held, although how free or fair they will be is anybody’s guess.

Maldives is a young democracy, barely four years old. The past three decades it was under the autocratic rule of Maumoon Abdul Gayoom who ruled the country with an iron fist. Under his reign, Mr Nasheed, a journalist by profession emerged as the country’s best known dissident. A staunch rights activist and champion of democracy and civil liberties, he tirelessly campaigned to end dictatorial rule in Maldives. His activism led to his being imprisoned 16 times; he even spent eight months in solitary confinement undergoing immense physical and mental torture. Eventually, his campaign brought global attention to Mr Gayoom’s abusive regime. Growing international pressure ultimately forced the Maldivian strongman to allow free and fair elections in 2008, in sharp contrast to the electoral shams he had overseen over the past decades.

Mr Nasheed emerged victorious in the 2008 general election and took office on November 11 with a huge popular mandate. From day one, he was committed to taking his fight against autocracy to its logical conclusion by establishing a strong democratic framework in his country. But his transition from activist to President, no matter how well-meaning, was far from smooth. Mr Gayoom was gone but his party was still active and elements from the old regime remained deeply entrenched in the system — be it in Parliament, within the police or the Army — and fighting them off proved impossible.

Along with the Islamists, the old guard was determined to thwart the Nasheed Government’s every effort to reform and restructure the country’s socio-political institutions, and sadly, it seems to have succeeded. The situation was made worse in part by the fact that Mr Nasheed despite his popularity and goodwill, did not have a majority in the Maldivian Parliament, known as Majlis. He was, therefore, heavily dependent on the Opposition to pass any major reform or legislation. And while he did have the support of some Opposition parties at the start of his tenure, much of that eroded in the course of the next few years as Mr Nasheed embarked on a political campaign to weed out all elements of the old regime.

But given the kind of influence still wielded by Mr Gayoom and his supporters, this was a strategic mistake. With the Opposition becoming ever more critical of his rule, Mr Nasheed found it impossible to conduct even the daily business of governance. In recent times, the Majlis was in a complete deadlock as the Opposition refused to let it function. The most obvious fall out of such a political logjam was the corrosion of popular support. A governance deficit meant the prices of essential commodities soared while unemployment too was on the rise. Add to this the Islamists’ slander campaign against Mr Nasheed, and his presidency was ripe for a coup.

Indeed, for months before Tuesday’s virtual coup, the Islamists had been out on the streets attacking Mr Nasheed’s religious views and policies, such as his decision to maintain diplomatic relations with Israel. Unfortunately, the former President failed to bring these rabble-rousers under control as he dawdled between appeasement and punishment. For instance, the Government first gave in to the Islamists’ demand to ban spas across the country in December 2011, but overturned the decision at a later date.

The final straw, of course, came with the arrest of the Chief Justice of the criminal court. Like many other members of the judiciary who are believed to be in Mr Gayoom’s pockets, Justice Abdulla Mohamed had refused to prosecute members of the old regime and had been stalling cases of graft and rights abuses brought against them. His political bias was vitiating the system and making it impossible for Mr Nasheed to deliver on his promise of an independent judiciary. However, the judge’s arrest led to a constitutional crisis which prompted the Supreme Court to step in and order his release.

But as the Government ignored the order, Mr Nasheed’s critics were quick to  accuse him of browbeating his opponents much like his predecessor. But the fact remains that he had been pushed to the wall and had to retaliate.

As the controversy raged on, the past three weeks saw street protests break out throughout the densely populated capital of Male. On Monday, the headquarters of Mr Nasheed’s Maldives Democratic Party came under attack and overnight, vandals captured the offices of the state television broadcaster MNBC. They also renamed it TV Maldives, as it was called during Mr Gayoom’s regime. The situation deteriorated on Tuesday when soldiers fired rubber bullets at revolting police officers and other demonstrators who had laid siege to the Maldives National Defence Force headquarters in Republic Square.

With the possibility of large-scale violence looming and the military holding a gun to his head, Mr Nasheed was faced with a choice to either crack down on the protesters or leave office. Ever the rights activist, Mr Nasheed announced his resignation on Tuesday evening saying that, “It will be better for the country, if I resign. I don’t want to run the country with an iron fist”. His departure speech is a testimony to the kind of leader he aspired to be and only serves to underline what a tremendous blow this has been to Maldives’ infant democracy. Thankfully, he seems determined to fight back as his call to President Waheed on Wednesday to resign stands proof.

Mr Nasheed had once said that Maldives has shown the world that, “You don’t have to bomb a Muslim country for regime change.” And indeed, the Indian Ocean archipelago could have been an apt precursor to the Arab Spring. That the old guard is gaining power in Maldives at a time when Islamist-back Governments are taking over across Arabia is perhaps a telling comment.

Nonetheless, it is still too early to comment on how the recent developments in Maldives will eventually play out. On its part, India whose relations with Maldives go back a long time, will do well to ensure that its neighbour’s democratic credentials are upheld and that the Islamists who have already reared their ugly head are not allowed to run amock.

India had come out in Mr Gayoom’s support back in 1988 when former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi had sent out military support to buttress the Maldivian dictator’s faltering regime. New Delhi should have stood by Mr Nasheed in his hour of crisis.

(This article was published in the Op-ed section of The Pioneer on February 09, 2012.)