Power to the People

Colum Kenny: When smartphones and social media are neither very smart, nor very social - Colum Kenny, Columnists - Independent.ie

2011-08-14T01:47:00.000-07:00

Colum Kenny: When smartphones and social media are neither very smart, nor very social -
Colum Kenny, Columnists - Independent.ie

Universal Declaration on Democracy

2009-09-14T19:30:00.000-07:00

Greetings to all our readers on the occasion of the International Day of Democracy, being marked in the Maldives for the first time.

On 8 November 2007, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution which designated 15 September as the International Day of Democracy. The date was chosen in recognition of the fact that it marks the anniversary of the adoption by the Inter-Parliamentary Union in 1997, of the Universal Declaration on Democracy. The text is quoted below:

UNIVERSAL DECLARATION ON DEMOCRACY
Declaration adopted without a vote* by the Inter-Parliamentary Council at its 161st session.

The Inter-Parliamentary Council,
Reaffirming the Inter-Parliamentary Union's commitment to peace and development and convinced that the strengthening of the democratisation process and representative institutions will greatly contribute to attaining this goal,
Reaffirming also the calling and commitment of the Inter-Parliamentary Union to promoting democracy and the establishment of pluralistic systems of representative government in the world, and wishing to strengthen its sustained and multiform action in this field,
Recalling that each State has the sovereign right, freely to choose and develop, in accordance with the will of its people, its own political, social, economic and cultural systems without interference by other States in strict conformity with the United Nations Charter,
Recalling also the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted on 10 December 1948, as well as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights adopted on 16 December 1966, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination adopted on 21 December 1965 and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women adopted on 18 December 1979,
Recalling further the Declaration on Criteria for Free and Fair Elections which it adopted in March 1994 and in which it confirmed that in any State the authority of the government can derive only from the will of the people as expressed in genuine, free and fair elections,
Referring to the Agenda for Democratisation presented on 20 December 1996 by the UN Secretary-General to the 51st session of the United Nations General Assembly,
Adopts the following Universal Declaration on Democracy and urges Governments and Parliaments throughout the world to be guided by its content:
FIRST PART - THE PRINCIPLES OF DEMOCRACY
1. Democracy is a universally recognised ideal as well as a goal, which is based on common values shared by peoples throughout the world community irrespective of cultural, political, social and economic differences. It is thus a basic right of citizenship to be exercised under conditions of freedom, equality, transparency and responsibility, with due respect for the plurality of views, and in the interest of the polity.
2. Democracy is both an ideal to be pursued and a mode of government to be applied according to modalities which reflect the diversity of experiences and cultural particularities without derogating from internationally recognised principles, norms and standards. It is thus a constantly perfected and always perfectible state or condition whose progress will depend upon a variety of political, social, economic, and cultural factors.
3. As an ideal, democracy aims essentially to preserve and promote the dignity and fundamental rights of the individual, to achieve social justice, foster the economic and social development of the community, strengthen the cohesion of society and enhance national tranquillity, as well as to create a climate that is favourable for international peace. As a form of government, democracy is the best way of achieving these objectives; it is also the only political system that has the capacity for self-correction.
4. The achievement of democracy presupposes a genuine partnership between men and women in the conduct of the affairs of society in which they work in equality and complementarity, drawing mutual enrichment from their differences.
5. A state of democracy ensures that the processes by which power is acceded to, wielded and alternates allow for free political competition and are the product of open, free and non-discriminatory participation by the people, exercised in accordance with the rule of law, in both letter and spirit.
6. Democracy is inseparable from the rights set forth in the international instruments recalled in the preamble. These rights must therefore be applied effectively and their proper exercise must be matched with individual and collective responsibilities.
7. Democracy is founded on the primacy of the law and the exercise of human rights. In a democratic State, no one is above the law and all are equal before the law.
8. Peace and economic, social and cultural development are both conditions for and fruits of democracy. There is thus interdependence between peace, development, respect for and observance of the rule of law and human rights.
SECOND PART - THE ELEMENTS AND EXERCISE OF DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT
9. Democracy is based on the existence of well-structured and well-functioning institutions, as well as on a body of standards and rules and on the will of society as a whole, fully conversant with its rights and responsibilities.
10. It is for democratic institutions to mediate tensions and maintain equilibrium between the competing claims of diversity and uniformity, individuality and collectivity, in order to enhance social cohesion and solidarity.
11. Democracy is founded on the right of everyone to take part in the management of public affairs; it therefore requires the existence of representative institutions at all levels and, in particular, a Parliament in which all components of society are represented and which has the requisite powers and means to express the will of the people by legislating and overseeing government action.
12. The key element in the exercise of democracy is the holding of free and fair elections at regular intervals enabling the people's will to be expressed. These elections must be held on the basis of universal, equal and secret suffrage so that all voters can choose their representatives in conditions of equality, openness and transparency that stimulate political competition. To that end, civil and political rights are essential, and more particularly among them, the rights to vote and to be elected, the rights to freedom of expression and assembly, access to information and the right to organise political parties and carry out political activities. Party organisation, activities, finances, funding and ethics must be properly regulated in an impartial manner in order to ensure the integrity of the democratic processes.
13. It is an essential function of the State to ensure the enjoyment of civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights to its citizens. Democracy thus goes hand in hand with an effective, honest and transparent government, freely chosen and accountable for its management of public affairs.
14. Public accountability, which is essential to democracy, applies to all those who hold public authority, whether elected or non-elected, and to all bodies of public authority without exception. Accountability entails a public right of access to information about the activities of government, the right to petition government and to seek redress through impartial administrative and judicial mechanisms.
15. Public life as a whole must be stamped by a sense of ethics and by transparency, and appropriate norms and procedures must be established to uphold them.
16. Individual participation in democratic processes and public life at all levels must be regulated fairly and impartially and must avoid any discrimination, as well as the risk of intimidation by State and non-State actors.
17. Judicial institutions and independent, impartial and effective oversight mechanisms are the guarantors for the rule of law on which democracy is founded. In order for these institutions and mechanisms fully to ensure respect for the rules, improve the fairness of the processes and redress injustices, there must be access by all to administrative and judicial remedies on the basis of equality as well as respect for administrative and judicial decisions both by the organs of the State and representatives of public authority and by each member of society.
18. While the existence of an active civil society is an essential element of democracy, the capacity and willingness of individuals to participate in democratic processes and make governance choices cannot be taken for granted. It is therefore necessary to develop conditions conducive to the genuine exercise of participatory rights, while also eliminating obstacles that prevent, hinder or inhibit this exercise. It is therefore indispensable to ensure the permanent enhancement of, inter alia, equality, transparency and education and to remove obstacles such as ignorance, intolerance, apathy, the lack of genuine choices and alternatives and the absence of measures designed to redress imbalances or discrimination of a social, cultural, religious and racial nature, or for reasons of gender.
19. A sustained state of democracy thus requires a democratic climate and culture constantly nurtured and reinforced by education and other vehicles of culture and information. Hence, a democratic society must be committed to education in the broadest sense of the term, and more particularly civic education and the shaping of a responsible citizenry.
20. Democratic processes are fostered by a favourable economic environment; therefore, in its overall effort for development, society must be committed to satisfying the basic economic needs of the most disadvantaged, thus ensuring their full integration in the democratic process.
21. The state of democracy presupposes freedom of opinion and expression; this right implies freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
22. The institutions and processes of democracy must accommodate the participation of all people in homogeneous as well as heterogeneous societies in order to safeguard diversity, pluralism and the right to be different in a climate of tolerance.
23. Democratic institutions and processes must also foster decentralised local and regional government and administration, which is a right and a necessity, and which makes it possible to broaden the base of public participation.
THIRD PART - THE INTERNATIONAL DIMENSION OF DEMOCRACY
24. Democracy must also be recognised as an international principle, applicable to international organisations and to States in their international relations. The principle of international democracy does not only mean equal or fair representation of States; it also extends to the economic rights and duties of States.
25. The principles of democracy must be applied to the international management of issues of global interest and the common heritage of humankind, in particular the human environment.
26. To preserve international democracy, States must ensure that their conduct conforms to international law, refrain from the use or threat of force and from any conduct that endangers or violates the sovereignty and political or territorial integrity of other States, and take steps to resolve their differences by peaceful means.
27. A democracy should support democratic principles in international relations. In that respect, democracies must refrain from undemocratic conduct, express solidarity with democratic governments and non-State actors like non-governmental organisations which work for democracy and human rights, and extend solidarity to those who are victims of human rights violations at the hands of undemocratic régimes. In order to strengthen international criminal justice, democracies must reject impunity for international crimes and serious violations of fundamental human rights and support the establishment of a permanent international criminal court.
* * *
*After the Declaration was adopted, the delegation of China expressed reservations to the text

Continental Shelf for the Maldives?

2009-08-26T11:22:00.000-07:00

By Ahmed Shaheed for OSA and Dhivehi Observer

When I tell people that the Maldives may have a continental shelf, I do get a very appropriate response. It usually is a friendly, “you must be pulling my leg?”, or the less friendly, “you are really going to put your foot in it,” or the more sarcastic, “my foot!”

Well, all these responses have hit the nail on the head: it is all about the “foot” and finding the “foot” at the right depth and distance.

But, before I get to that, let me set the context for the Maldives quest for the extended continental shelf.

Scramble for the Seabed

Over the last year or so, there has been a frenzy of claims to portions of the seabed from nearly pole to pole. Nation-states are in a mad scramble (especially by those who are fleet of foot) to claim large tracts of the underwater world for rights to exploit the abundant mineral wealth on the seabed – a land-grab not seen since the 19th century scramble for Africa. Why? The time-limit set to advance such claims by the Law of the Sea Convention for countries who had ratified the treaty before 1999 was 13 May 2009.

On 7 August 2009, the Maldives informed the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf that it cannot consent to the claim lodged by Sri Lanka on the extent of the latter’s continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles to the southwest. The reason is that the Maldives itself may have a claim which overlaps the extended EEZ of Sri Lanka.

Sri Lanka had submitted their claim to an extended continental shelf on 8 May 2009. And it comes very close to our EEZ.

Sri Lanka's Claim

I requested President Nasheed to immediately set up a high-level committee to review the Sri Lankan claim, which he did the same day. The Maldives had upto 3 months to comment on Sri Lanka’s submission, and hence the notification made on 7 August.

Now, the Maldives must prepare its own claim to an extended continental shelf. It would be vital that we make our own claim, subject to compliance with the legal definition of a continental shelf under the Law of the Sea Convention.

The Maldives ratified the Convention in September 2000. So we have until September 2010 to make that claim, or at the least, submit preliminary information and an intended date for the submission of the full claim.

For years, the government of Maldives had got off on the wrong foot by relying on a study done by an expert in the early 1990s. The study dismissed the idea that the Maldives may have a continental margin that extended beyond 200 nautical miles into the sea. After all, the Maldives are on a ridge and the atolls have a very steep slope just a few metres into the sea. So what continental shelf?

But in June 2007, the Attorney-General, Dr Hassan Saeed, began to review this position and fresh inquiries were made through the UN.

It also became apparent that trouble could brew up in the Indian Ocean, with some of the islands in the region preparing their claims, and that some of the claims could affect the Maldives, especially given that there was no demarcation of maritime boundary in the south.

Even after Hassan and I quit the government in August 2007, we alerted the concerned civil servants to follow up on the matter.

In the public domain, too, the issued raised its head every now and then, particularly following remarks made about the matter in political rallies by Hassan. But, in the media coverage, and in the government’s response, there was considerable confusion about what was exactly the issue – because there were several unresolved issues about our maritime boundary.

Some of the confusion persists, as do the unresolved issues.

But, for the most part, the confusion relates to a technicality, a vital technicality. It is the variance between the normal definition of a continental shelf, which is the submerged piece of land before the steep slope, and the legal definition established by the Law of the Sea Convention.

Normal sense of a continental shelf

The definition in the Law of Sea Convention provides for an extended continental shelf beyond the continental slope into the area called the continental rise which is at the foot of the continental slope. Given a certain thickness of the sedimentation and depth, a portion of the continental rise can also be claimed as extended continental shelf, up to a total maximum of 360 nautical miles from the shore. It is all in Article76 of the Law of the Sea Convention. And establishing the foot of the slope is critical.

As defined by the Law of the Sea Convention

The area beyond the 200 nautical mile EEZ will be international waters, but the State which claims the extended continental shelf will have the sole right to the mineral wealth on the seabed.

There is a good chance that the Maldives will be able to substantiate a claim to an extended continental shelf, especially if the depth of the seas does not reach 2.5 km before a distance of 100 nautical miles from the shore or, as the jargon goes, the baseline.

Even if the technical data (bathymetric and geodetic) were to show that the Maldives does not qualify for an extended shelf, it would be incumbent upon the government to determine the situation on facts rather than assumptions.

The downside is the cost of the whole enterprise. Sri Lanka’s study is reported to have cost over 6 million dollars!

But fortunately, there are ways to find donors to foot the bill. Funds are available for this purpose through the UN and a case can be made to obtain such funds.
Such funds become available if the Maldives can demonstrate by a “desktop” study by using generally available scientific data that there is a prima facie case for an extended shelf claim. And, for that process, there are many friendly countries and organisations willing to help.

Indeed, that work has already begun.

At the end of the day, the mineral wealth on the seabed would prove to be too valuable to be ignored, and a few million dollars spent to secure national rights over them will be a worthwhile investment for our future generations.

The challenge really is to identify the foot of the slope before a depth of 2.5 km is reached, and beyond a distance of 100 nautical miles from the base shoreline.

Building a Framework for India-Maldives Security Co-operation: An Oceanic Agenda for the Future

2009-08-22T13:48:00.000-07:00

What is the take home message from the hysteria last week in the Maldives over news reports in India that the Maldives will be included in the “security grid of India”? It is not that the conservative press could get it totally wrong and ride a wave of jingoism. But, rather that the blinding absence in the public domain of a proper theoretical framework to view and understand India-Maldives relations could be dangerous.

Quite a lot of people, who “should have known better”, may have wrecked their political reputation by jumping the gun on the news reports. The largest political party in the country, despite being architects of the current India-Maldives friendship, showed that they had no understanding at all of the essence of India-Maldives relations. Having burned their fingers, the party fell back on the standard dual-strategy: the official party leaders did a U-turn and expressed confidence in India’s altruism, while their surrogates and proxies organised xenophobic public protests and mass media campaigns.

But underneath all this is a genuine concern: the India-Maldives relationship is far more serious to be left merely to bureaucrats or politicians or the business community: the intellectual community must also get involved in it. I think my friend Dr Sawad was making the same point last night.

When the dust settles down after the visit of the Indian defence minister, it would be wise for those who would wish to use common sense rather than hysteria to analyse the reasons for that alarmist outburst, and to identify ways to better align the perception and reality of India-Maldives relations. Perhaps, some of the misperception will endure, given certain geostrategic realities and their associated prejudices; but nothing should hinder a more nuanced understanding of even the most rigid geostrategic context.

I believe one of the primary causes of the hysteria is the culture of secrecy that has so far enveloped all things done by the MNDF. Where there is no information, speculation will take over. Without facts, fiction takes over. There must be some arrangement whereby there is no scope for secret agreements and treaties, as prescribed by Woodrow Wilson 90 years ago. Granted, this government has been more transparent than the previous regime; but there is a time-lag before the public realises that there is in fact transparency. Had there been more transparency historically, then none of the moves being discussed today would have caused alarm.

The second is more subliminal: the fear of the new. The conservative press hopes that it can stoke these fears and create the impression that the infant democracy lacks the experience and the skill to conduct a sound foreign policy. The old guard press also wants to fan public apprehension about the new style of diplomacy, which has jettisoned many of the formalities and protocols that they had grown accustomed to.

The third, and, by far, the most important, reason is that there is no clear framework to contextualise India-Maldives relations. The framework at the popular level, as exploited by the conservative press, is the 19th century lens of “gunboat diplomacy” and its successor, “dollar diplomacy”. In fact, the lens appears to have been scratched and scraped by the sandpaper of the Non-Aligned Movement’s outdated allergy to great powers – hence the allergic reaction to the word “base”, irrespective of whether the word is used as a noun or a verb!

A clear framework will not only help dispel public disquiet, but will also provide an abiding tool for policymakers to formulate relevant bilateral interactions. It will also provide a canvass for India and Maldives to conceive and develop a focussed and coherent security relationship, regardless of the government in office in New Delhi or Male.

Such a framework, no doubt, already exists in the mindsets of the Indian and the Maldivian authorities. I have been closely involved in developing and executing aspects of India-Maldives friendship over the past 20 years, and the understanding at the official levels is clear. For the past four years, I have been advocating for, and working on, bringing that understanding into the public domain – evidently without much success to date. The media and the public in both countries need a clear picture of the principles and parameters that characterise the India-Maldives relationship.

Back in 1989, I tried to import from Karl Deutsch the notion of a “pluralistic security community” as a framework for developing India-Maldives relations. That was an idea ahead of its time (and perhaps, still is). Policymakers in the Maldives thought only in terms of collective security principles, and introduced a resolution in the UN whose only purpose was to find a way to seek help from India, but within an international framework. I drafted the Foreign Minister’s UN speech in 1989, and a lot of my text made it through to the final delivery, but not enough of it.

I was convinced that India-Maldives relations could evolve a “new model” for relations between a great power and a small state. But the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq in August 1990, and the US response to it, appeared to vindicate the collective security approach of my bosses, and I packed my bags and headed back to University, to develop a theoretical framework based on the lessons of India-Maldives co-operation. The result was “Microstates and Room for Diplomatic Manoeuvre,” now gathering dust in the Library of the University of Queensland.

Having witnessed the evolution of India-Maldives relations at very close quarters since 1995, and having had the opportunity to make various interventions in that relationship, I have become increasingly convinced that what we have been able to fashion is indeed a new model relationship. The events of the past week have convinced me that it is also equally important to articulate and fully develop that model, because the media in both countries appear to view the relationship through the prism of the traditional security dilemma or a trade-off. (In fact, the BBC World Service called me today and asked me if India was not “using” the Maldives for its own ends!)

The India-Maldives relationship, as I see it, hinges on the intersection of three aspects: the bilateral dependence of Maldives on India for security, the importance to India of stability in the Indian Ocean, and the corpus of norms and principles that mediate that interdependence. Quite how to build a policy framework for this triad was what I explored in “Microstates and Room for Diplomatic Manoeuvre”. Such a policy framework provides a prescription for the types of policies that are beneficial or detrimental, the kinds of systemic conditions that are positive or negative, and the variables that determine the impact on the country concerned. The framework, for example, would explain why India would not mind the Maldives recognising Kosovo.

But the challenge today is not just to be reactive to given situations, but to find ways to actually transform the security landscape. We need an architecture that would expand our horizons and make us safer. Now that the Maldives is striving towards democracy, there is scope to reintroduce the notion of a pluralistic security community (which only works between open societies), and to find ways to broaden the scope for the harmonisation of security interests either in a regional or sub-regional context. In other words, we need to build a pluralistic security community with India while at the same time working towards a regional consensus on security.

So what is the agenda for the future? Bill Tow’s seminal works on sub-regional security co-operation and on “convergent security” provide good intellectual starting points for such an agenda.

Professor Bill Tow

Tow defines “convergent security” as “the managed transition from a regional security system based predominantly on realist-oriented bilateral security arrangements to one based increasingly upon regional multilateral arrangements.” Likewise, Amitav Acharya has made a compelling case for the Deutschian security community approach to regional order, and his analysis of the ASEAN context offers useful insights for a future agenda.

I would propose two things, and I intend to pursue these in the time ahead both as policymaker and as advocate of strong India-Maldives relations. First, we need a strong and stable bilateral relationship with India that realises the mutual security interests of India and the Maldives and builds towards a pluralistic security community. The increasing political and economic openness of the Maldives will facilitate that.

Second, we need a forum to harmonise security perspectives at sub-regional or regional level. A triangular dialogue amongst India, Sri Lanka and the Maldives would be the starting point. Then the forum must decide whether the group must extend into the entire SAARC region or to Indian Ocean, or both.

Either way, the Maldives can play a useful role in promoting “convergent security” in the West Indian Ocean, much like Singapore is doing to our East.

In the time to come, the strategic importance of the Maldives’ location will only increase. Likewise, the threats to the Maldives will also increase. The way to address these challenges would be to build a security edifice whose foundation is a strong bilateral relationship with India and whose capstone will be a forum where an oceanic perspective can be openly discussed and addressed.

A clearly articulated diplomatic initiative on these grounds will contribute to a clear and transparent framework to view, understand and develop India-Maldives relations, and allay fears that security co-operation diminishes national security. And, in actual fact, it would not be possible to enhance the security of either India or the Maldives without a broader oceanic perspective.

Should this not be the agenda when President Nasheed takes over the chair of SAARC in 2011 and gets to appoint a Secretary-General?

___________

Written by Ahmed Shaheed for Dhivehi Observer and Open Society

Vision of India-Maldives Relations in the Context of Democratisation in the Maldives

2009-08-15T10:58:00.000-07:00

I recently visited New Delhi on an official visit and was invited to speak at the Indian Council of World Affairs. I have received a number of requests from various people for a copy of the speech, especially after it was cited by many speakers at the recently held seminar in Male on Social Political Transformation.Here I was speaking as Foreign Minister and therefore necessarily had to comply with various diplomatic norms

Dear Excellencies, Friends, Ladies and Gentlemen:

I am delighted to be here today especially in the presence of so many friends of the Maldives, many of whom are distinguished diplomats who have contributed immensely to the development of the strong friendship between India and the Maldives.

Allow me also to thank the Indian Council on Foreign Relations for inviting me to speak here today about India-Maldives relations.

I am always eager to visit India because India is such a great friend of the Maldives, and a sound India-Maldives relationship forms the cornerstone of a successful foreign policy for the Maldives. When we dial 911, it is New Delhi at the other end of the line: from Operation Cactus of 1988 to the post-tsunami rescue attempts in 2004 to emergency economic assistance in 2009. It was on this basis that I articulated the notion of an “India First” foreign policy on my first visit to India as foreign minister in August 2005. It is also based on the fact that we are an integral part of South Asia. It is through a South Asian lens that we must view the world.

Today, as foreign minister of the new government, I would like to re-affirm the same policy commitment, representing a bipartisan or national consensus on that doctrine. In actual fact, my topic today is how the change in the way the Maldives is governed, namely the democratic transition of last November, is going to affect the evolution of India-Maldives relations.

Let me begin with a snapshot of India-Maldives relations. India and the Maldives have always enjoyed very warm and cordial ties, based on the principles enshrined in the UN Charter, such as the sovereign equality of states and non-interference in the internal affairs of states, the spirit of Bandung with its emphasis on Third World Solidarity and South-South co-operation, the values of the Commonwealth which stress democracy and human rights, and the goals of the SAARC Charter which focus on peace, development and prosperity. But ahead of all that, the friendship is based on centuries of cultural and commercial relations, shared norms and values, and geographical proximity. In recent decades, especially since Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and Prime Minister Ahmed Zaki exchanged visits in 1974-75, a strong partnership has emerged, covering a whole range of areas and issues, from trade and finance, transport and communication, to education and security. Thirty-five years later, having built a major partnership during the Gayoom presidency, India-Maldives relationship is again poised to enter a new phase of rapid expansion, as a consequence of the momentous changes underway in the Maldives.

I argue that democratisation of the Maldives will increase both the need as well as the opportunity for a deeper and broader engagement between India and the Maldives. When I say democratisation, I do not refer merely to the election result. Democracy is not an event, it is a process, often a painstaking process, and the democracy-building process in the Maldives will require a broad engagement with India. I am not aiming today to give an exhaustive treatment of the topic, but to provide a perspective from the Maldives, covering the most crucial impacts that will follow from democratisation.

Indeed, the Maldives today is at a critical crossroads. The election result last year produced a giant leap for the Maldives, and we now have one foot on the path to a democratic and prosperous Maldives.

But that is only a first step in democracy-building and, behind us, the footprints of authoritarian rule are more deeply ingrained and enduring than those left on the moon by the crew of Apollo-11 this week forty years ago.

At the same time, on our flanks, on the one-hand are the perils of economic stagnation and social malaise, corruption and impunity, drugs and lawlessness on the slippery slope of what Professor Larry Diamond at Stanford University calls a “predatory society”, where politics becomes a zero sum game, often a matter of life and death.

On the other flank are the perils of intolerance, bigotry and extremism, where politics has no place at all. It will be difficult to navigate past all this on our own.

And to make matters worse, in a democratic transition, things tend to get worse before they get better; the path to democracy dips down before it lifts up. This has been amply demonstrated by Samuel Huntington’s study of democratisation of what he calls the Third Wave countries—those that achieved democratic transitions between 1974 and 1993. We might not be an exception.

Building democracy requires fostering of civic communities with high degrees of social capital based on trust and networks of co-operation. It requires institutions that support rule of law, accountability and equal opportunity. It requires the conversion of what has been called “predatory societies” with rampant corruption and abuse of power, into societies that foster pluralism, constitutionalism, social harmony and prosperity.

But let me place the Maldives situation in context: I am not being alarmist about the prospects for the future. I just want to be realistic about expectations and focus on addressing the challenges rather than ignoring them. The notion of the “J-curve” is an instructive one just as the concept of transition from a predatory society to a civic community provides a guide to action.

What is the J-curve? The notion of a J-curve for democratic transition relates to the thesis advanced by Ian Bremmer in his book called The J Curve: A New Way to Understand Why Nations Rise and Fall. It depicts the relationship between a country’s “stability” and its “openness”. The curve demonstrates the path the countries go through as they proceed towards greater openness.

Some states, such as North Korea and Iran, argues Bremmer, are stable only because they are relatively closed. In these countries, governments strive hard to insulate citizens from the outside world -- and, where possible, from one another. By contrast, some other countries such as Canada, India, Germany, the United States, Japan, Switzerland and many others are stable precisely because they are open societies.

The idea of a curve is that when a country whose stability depends on being closed finally, for whatever reason, begins to open up, it slides down the left side of the curve toward the dip in the J, a point of maximum vulnerability before it rises up the right side of the curve. A country cannot progress from left (closed) to right (open) along the J without passing through that dip. Bremmer demonstrates that in the real world, if relatively closed countries like Uzbekistan, or Burma decided to open up a bit by holding genuinely free and fair national elections with full coverage in local media, they would almost certainly “reap the whirlwind”. That is often the reason why the governments of closed states resist or quickly withdraw from efforts to attain moderate reforms towards greater openness.

Recently I made some comments on the applicability of the J-curve to the Maldives predicament, and Mr Bremmer responded by agreeing with my worries about the challenges that the Maldives faces in consolidating democracy: In an article in Foreign Policy entitled, “As Go the Maldives, So Goes the World,” he wrote in May this year:
“Worsening economic conditions have exacerbated pre-existing political problems in Russia, Ukraine, Pakistan, Turkey, Mexico, Argentina and many other countries. All these states have begun to slide toward the dip in the J curve and the turmoil it represents. And all those who hold political power in these countries must decide how their governments should respond. They can hunker down, build new walls, and favor near-term stability at the expense of investment in longer-term prosperity. Or they can double down on the power of free markets and international trade to expand their economic horizons and continue to engage with other governments in finding solutions to seemingly intractable common problems.

There is nothing inevitable about globalization's progress. There are plenty of political officials around the world, insecure in their positions, with obvious motives to advance populist/nationalist/protectionist arguments at the expense of trade, foreign investment, and immigration. But if a state's leaders and lawmakers turn their backs on the increasingly free exchange of ideas, information, people, money, goods and services, its citizens -- and the global economy -- will only be the poorer for it.”

We in the Maldives take these warnings very seriously. We cannot be complacent or take for granted that a democratic transition will mean that everything will be hunky dory in the Maldives the next day. Even at the best of times -- and global economic recession makes these terribly bad times for infant democracies -- democracy-building is a painstaking process which takes effort and time.

I am not about to make excuses for the democratic deficits that exist in the Maldives, but rather to acknowledge their existence and to set the context within which these can be addressed. The J-curve instructs us to persist with the reforms and seek greater openness, to go past the dip in the curve despite enormous difficulties, and to stay the course for democracy.

Our history especially, dictates that we should take great care to stay the course. Thrice in the past 80 years, in 1933, in 1953 and in 1989-90, the Maldives had taken important steps towards political modernisation, and thrice retreated back towards autocracy in the face of economic and political difficulties. And the spirit of reform did not rebound for at least two decades on each occasion.

In 1933, within about 7 months of proclaiming the country’s first constitution, the people tore up the constitution and banished the reformers. The old guard found that a constitution provided for a very strange and inconvenient way to govern.
In 1953, the First Republic ended just after 7 months with the arrest and subsequent fatal mobbing of the President. People associated democracy with economic hardship and disorienting socio-cultural changes.

In 1989-90, in the aftermath of Operation Cactus, there was a period of few months when the media were free, dissident politicians could be heard, and corrupt politicians had to flee. However, the genie of liberty was put back in the bottle, again in about 7 months. The take-home message for the general public was that freedoms were dangerous and destabilising.

The times that we face today are perhaps more challenging than before, given the global economic situation. Yet at the same time, the determination to stay the course is stronger -- I could say that a critical mass of people today are weighing in on the side of political openness. Moreover, the international commitment to support the Maldives in its march towards democracy is unprecedented.

The requirements of these trying times, to keep pushing forward along the J-curve towards the right side of the curve, will obviously dominate the bilateral agenda with all our development partners. And so is the case therefore with India. The challenge is to sustain the momentum along the curve without retreating, and also to avoid falling off the curve, into a situation where the country descends into the worst form of what has been called a “predatory society” -- a failed state where life becomes, in the Hobbesian sense, “nasty, brutish and short” for the people of the Maldives.

The notion of a predatory society described by Professor Larry Diamond in his book The Spirit of Democracy indeed provides a useful tool to shape the dialogue between the Maldives and its development partners. The related concept of a civic community, as described by Robert Putnam, identifies where our energies may best be focused on democracy-building.

A predatory society is one in which there is rampant corruption, lack of accountability, where political struggles become an all-or-nothing struggle:
In Diamond’s words:

“[In a predatory society] there is no real community, no shared commitment to any common vision of the public good, and no respect for law. Behavior is cynical and opportunistic. Those who capture political power seek to monopolize it and the rents that flow from it … officials feed on the state and the powerful prey on the weak. The rich extract wealth from the poor and deprive them of public goods. Corruption is widely regarded as the norm, political participation is mobilized from above, civic engagement is meagre, compromise is scarce, and nearly everyone feels powerless, exploited, and unhappy.”

Diamond adds:
“The predatory society cannot sustain democracy, for sustainable democracy requires constitutionalism, compromise, and respect for the law. Neither can it generate sustainable economic growth, for that requires actors with financial capital to invest in productive activity. In the predatory society, people do not get rich through productive activity and honest risk taking; they get rich by manipulating power and privilege, by stealing from the state, by extracting from the weak, and by shirking the law.

And politics is a zero-sum life and death struggle:

“Political actors in the predatory society will use any means and break any rules in the quest for power and wealth. Politicians in the predatory society bribe electoral officials, beat up opposition campaigners, and assassinate opposing candidates. Presidents silence criticism and eliminate their opponents by legal manipulation, arrest, or murder. Ministers worry first about the rents they can collect and only second about whether the equipment they are purchasing or the contract they are signing has any value for the public.”

Institutions are a facade:

“Legislators collect bribes to vote for bills. The police do not enforce the law. Judges do not decide the law. Customs officials do not inspect the goods. Manufacturers do not produce, bankers do not invest, borrowers do not repay, and contracts do not get enforced. Any actor with discretionary power is a rent-seeker.”

I am neither claiming nor denying that the above depiction is a true image of the Maldives at any time. Clearly, many elements of it have been observable in the Maldives. What I would say is that there are many who have argued that things were either as bad or worse in the Maldives, and that they constitute a sizeable number. Perception clearly matters, and what you believe is what you see. So an objective abstract reality, which may or may not differ from the perception, is less important than the conviction that corruption and impunity were rampant. That clearly points to the absence of a civic community in which accountability and trust play a major part.

The challenge for democratisation therefore is to foster a civic community, by developing independent institutions, promoting rule of law, enhancing oversight and accountability mechanisms, increasing transparency, strengthening media freedom, ensuring independence of the judiciary, and promoting the spirit of bargaining, compromise and accommodation. These are clearly laudable goals in themselves, but they can also become the means to promote inward investment and economic and political opportunity for all. Once again, the bilateral agenda with development partners must focus on fostering these goals. As a vibrant democracy, India is well placed to promote democracy in the Maldives, without which there can be no acceleration of economic development in the Maldives or long-term stability and durable peace.

Thus, these two concepts, the notion of the J-Curve and the challenge of transforming a predatory society into a civic community are useful tools in thinking about how the India-Maldives relationship will develop in the context of democratisation in the Maldives. The exposure to instability will draw in India’s involvement in a number of areas where co-operation will be sought by the Maldives. These will focus on mitigating vulnerability to all sorts of threats, and therefore emphasising security co-operation and police collaboration. It is no coincidence that these areas have dominated recent discussions and have been attached high priority by the both India and the Maldives.

There is a long history of security co-operation between India and Maldives, from Operation Cactus onwards. But such co-operation now needs to be expanded to cover new and emerging threats, co-eval with but not necessarily related to democratisation, such as enhanced maritime surveillance and security. Reports of Somali pirates seizing ships within the EEZ of Seychelles and the sea-borne terrorist attack on Mumbai on 26/11, are all wake-up calls for the Maldives. So, one key aspect of the bilateral dialogue will focus on strengthening the resilience of the Maldives against various security threats, from poaching to organised crime and terrorism. The collaboration will also need to extend to enhancing the capacity of the police to operate in a democratic and pluralistic environment.

The people will not sense that democracy has improved their lot until functionally the government starts to deliver better services, whether in terms of job creation, health care and utilities. Functional co-operation in these areas and the mobilisation of investment will also remain high priority issues in the bilateral agenda. In addition to official level engagements, the process of opening up the Maldives and the advocacy of privatisation will increase the opportunity for deeper and broader economic collaboration between India and the Maldives. The high profile delegation of the Confederation of Indian Industry that visited the Maldives in February and the 15 MOUS that were signed represent the spirit of the times, and the opportunities that exist for wider engagement. Likewise, the prompt response given by India to the request for emergency economic aid by the new government demonstrates an appreciation of the continuing 911 role of India. The emergency standby loan facility and other economic and trade concessions given to assist the Maldives highlight the increasingly important role of India in nurturing the new democracy.

But the inward investments will not come without a conducive environment, which depends on institutional and social capital. Changing the political culture will take a long time, but building institutions requires a shorter time frame. As a vibrant democracy, India can contribute tremendously to building the institutional capital of the Maldives, through capacity building of horizontal accountability mechanisms: an independent and professional judiciary, a credible anti-corruption commission, an effective auditor-general and a functionally effective parliament. The development of these mechanisms will also open up lucrative opportunities for Indian investors and foster greater economic collaboration.

One outcome of democracy in the Maldives will also be the development of multi-sector and multi-actor dialogues between the two countries. To date, although large numbers of citizens of both counties live in each other’s country, the main focus is on the ties between the two governments. Over time, the dialogue will be more varied, will involve the civil society of the two countries more frequently and prominently, and develop a broader relationship between the two countries. Both countries are encouraging such contact, because of the potential benefit for both countries in terms of fostering better understanding and greater South-South co-operation. Broadening the engagement will also contribute to strengthening vertical accountability mechanisms necessary to build a vibrant civic community in the Maldives—such as the development of a professional and alert media, development of political parties, issue-based non-government organisations and empowerment of the people. The vast expertise and intellectual resources of India as well as its rich civil society sector can contribute tremendously to enhancing vertical accountability or people power in the Maldives.

My conclusion is that democratisation in the Maldives requires a stronger, deeper and broader bilateral relationship between India and the Maldives, since it is in India’s interest to ensure that peace and stability prevail in its neighbourhood and in the interest of the Maldives to have an ally in dealing with a host of challenges that the country faces.

The opening up of closed societies is often accompanied by instability, and the management of that transition over the next decade or so will tend to dominate India-Maldives relations. Indian foreign policy is not evangelical: it does not tell its neighbours how to govern. But India cannot avoid that dialogue with its neighbours, from the sheer fact of proximity, and also because of shared interests, the SAARC project and the growing volume of transnational traffic.

Beyond the direct impacts of democracy, there are global trends that will also have an impact on India-Maldives relations, especially as they affect the national security of the two countries. There are a range of global phenomena that affect the national interests of the two countries, ranging from piracy and terrorism to sea-level rise. Then there are the traditional or strategic “games” that nations play, in which India and Maldives need to operate as a tag-team. This has been the spirit in which India and the Maldives have collaborated and co-ordinated positions in multilateral forums, and nearer home, given primacy to the SAARC project.
In short, my forecast is for a more intensified engagement. My recommendation is that both states seek to structure the relationship in ways that will provide an abiding focus on common interests and informed dialogue so that the bilateral agenda remains stable even as the Maldives rides the J-curve, and pursues democratic consolidation.
___________

Remembering Black: Time to Make People Power Durable

2009-08-09T20:11:00.000-07:00

TV Maldives has asked me to give them an interview about Black Friday, 13 August 2004. It was the day that a government for which I was its chief spokesperson, declared a state of emergency and locked up the opposition. I rarely say no an interview, so I promptly agreed.

Yet, I do feel some unease about talking about that day; because it is one of the darkest days that I have lived through yet.

No doubt, I rose to political prominence in the Maldives in my role as a government spokesperson, an office that I held from 9 May 2004 to 14 July 2005. Some people (those who wanted immediate regime change) hated me for my performance in that job and others (those who opposed regime change) adored me for the same performance. In that polarised atmosphere, where there was no dialogue amongst opposing groups, and everyone was viewing me through a prism of their own objectives. Very few recognised that I had my own goals for being where I was, and that those had nothing to do with either regime change or regime maintenance. I wanted a democracy with human rights safeguards – a new Maldives. And Professor Samuel Huntington’s The Third Wave: Democratisation in the Late 20th Century, published in 1992, gave me the roadmap to do that – the way to a New Maldives.

I said that Black Friday brings uneasy memories. That is because a lot of people suffered that day and from the events that followed. But, as everyone knows, that was not my doing, and, as many know well, I did my best to mitigate that. Working for a 25-year old outdated and atrophied regime is a perilous task, but I kept a clear conscience. In fact, one of my main roles was to teach the old guard at the “Sitcom” (Situation Committee) how to respond to the Opposition in ways consistent with international norms of democracy and human rights. That is why I can today team up with several victims of that day.

But at the time, few people knew what went on behind the scenes (or the numerous death threats that I received). The people who had a proper perspective of what I was doing were the foreign ambassadors and the international news media, who kept a close dialogue with both the government and the opposition. US Ambassador Lunstead, Colin Hicks at the UK High Commission, Indian High Commissioner Gavai, Dutch Deputy Ambassador van Dyke, as well as Sanjeev Srivastava of BBC, Simon Gardner of Reuters, the late Dilip Ganguly of Associated Press, Amal Jayasinghe of Agence France Presse, Abbas Faiz of Amnesty International to name a few from the summer of 2004, quite well understood and appreciated my role.

What was that role? It was to build bridges of understanding between the Maldives and the international community. It was neither to glorify former President Gayoom nor to demonise current President Nasheed. MDP were quite adept at putting across their side of the argument. But as all rational human beings know, there is always more than one perspective to any human endeavour. And really, as I always say, democracy is a process, not an event.

Of course, being cast in that role, I was being ostracised within my own community of friends: for example, Mahmood Razee and Ali Hashim were among my best buddies, and were very openly MDP. I was not part of the ruling elite, so naturally, my friends and associates felt that I was sacrificing my own future by trying to rescue a sinking ship. So the question all asked was why I was cast in that role?

Among those who asked me that question was Hassan Afeef, former MP for Thaa Atoll, MDP stalwart, and married to a relative of mine.

I explained to Afeef that I quit my foreign service career and took up the post of government spokesman because Gayoom gave me a credible undertaking that he would make the Maldives a modern democracy. I had a clear human rights agenda, and I had a credible undertaking from Gayoom that he would implement that agenda. I had enough reason to believe that he would not wiggle out of that commitment, and I was there to ensure that he did not wiggle out of that commitment. Afeef always protested that Gayoom would never be sincere, and I pledged to Afeef that the day that I came to believe that, I would quit Gayoom and join the opposition.

I explained to him and many others why I, at that time, believed that Gayoom was sincere. On Saturday, 9 August 2003, more than one month before Evan Naseem was murdered, I proposed a Human Rights Commission modelled on the Paris Principles to Gayoom and he accepted it the following day. Today we are all familiar with the Paris Principles; it was I who tied Gayoom down to them, using my position as Permanent Secretary at the Foreign Ministry. At the same time, I had secured Gayoom’s approval to accede to the UN Convention against Torture, and had begun the legal paperwork to do that. Then, on 15 February 2004, at Gayoom’s request, I travelled from New York to London to meet Amnesty International on 16 February to open a dialogue with them and to invite them to the Maldives, and they promptly agreed. I do not know what Gayoom’s motive in all this was—it may have been to improve the country’s image, as he kept on saying, but my intent was to mobilise the international legal framework and Amnesty International to effect lasting human rights reform in the Maldives. I honestly believed there was a lot of scope to make a lot of progress—and a lot of progress we did make.

And in April, Hill and Knowlton were contracted to help with government communications. It defied logic that at small island state would try to hoodwink a premier PR firm – and pay a lot of money while at it! Indeed, H&K were livid about the way the government handled the Black Friday protests.

And in late May, Gayoom confided in me details of what became his reform agenda. He called Shahid, Mohamed Hussain and me to his office and read out the 30-odd points of his reform proposals. They were generally very good, but I did suggest some revisions which he readily incorporated. Later, I met him privately and asked him when he would unveil his proposals. He told me that he would unveil them when he went to inaugurate the People’s Special Majlis- which could be July. I told him that it would be too late; that he should do it immediately before his ideas were leaked and he lost authorship, and that I would organise BBC interviews and other media platforms for him to publicise that.

So on 9 June Gayoom outlined his ideas – much to the chagrin of the old guard cabinet, for I had managed to get Gayoom to by-pass Cabinet approval by going public. Before he spoke, I shot out press releases to the international media that he would unveil an agenda to transform the Maldives into a “liberal democracy”. After he spoke, I proclaimed an “Agenda for Reform, Human Rights and Democracy” through press releases from the SCU. After a few uses of this phrase, objections were raised by the old guard to the use of the word “liberal”, so I began to use variously, “modern democracy”, “working democracy”, “functioning democracy”. All these terms implied that there would be very strong human rights safeguards.

I said my role was to build bridges of understanding between the government and the world. This involved explaining what was happening in the Maldives to the international community. It also involved in equal if not a greater measure, explaining the world to the old guard and making them conduct themselves in ways acceptable to the international community. Because no one was willing to take on the first role, I had quite a lot of influence in the second role, often being able to marginalise the old guard advisors. Often, I was able to predict quite accurately what the pro-democracy activists will do next- my training as a diplomat helped me to listen to the chatter more closely than others in the government did, and it enabled me to avert over-reactions by the Old Guard on many occasions. And I slipped them a copy of Gene Sharp’s handbook From Dictatorship to Democracy, which has been used as a manual by pro-democracy activists of Otpor in Serbia and in the “coloured revolutions” of the early years of this century. (The “Rose Revolution” in Georgia had occurred in November 2003 and perhaps explains why Dr Hussain declared “Finifenma Ingilaab” on Black Friday.)

And it was because of the second role – restraining the Old Guard -- that I did not walk away from the government when it declared emergency on Black Friday. The emergency showed that the Old Guard had lost it, and knew not how to handle the brewing crisis. That would be dangerous for any country. In any case, having done extensive research on the PRG revolution in Grenada, I could not believe that revolutions were the best way to establish democracy.

I was at home when the emergency was declared. I was shocked! Emergency rule has been the norm in Egypt, but in South Asia, it reminds one of the period in India when emergency rule was imposed. It was a traumatic and painful experience in India, and it scared me. When Shahid, my boss at that time, called and asked me to come into the office, I hesitated. I took time to think about it. Something inside me rebelled against the whole notion of emergency rule, especially where opposition MPs are locked up. That is a dangerous path.

As the phone kept ringing, I thought about my decision deeply. I took up the post of chief government spokesperson with a plan, based on Huntington’s seminal work on democratisation. It was Gene Sharp versus Samuel Huntington (and my friend Hussain from Mashhad). Huntington showed that democracy was most durable when it was achieved peacefully and by regime transformation rather than by abrupt replacement. Democracy was a process not an event.

Viewed from that perspective, I saw that the Black Friday was not the endgame, and that the Reform Agenda must still be pushed along. There were pre-planned visits by Amnesty International and by the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs: the former to advocate for human rights and the latter for political pluralism. And left for themselves, and cornered as they were, the Old Guard could lash out even more irrationally and brutally. There was still a role I had to play without selling out my conscience. The process must be pushed forward.
I went to office some 90 minutes after I was summoned.

The first thing I did when I went to office that day was to call Mr Ahmed Mujuthaba of the Human Rights Commission and Mr Minh Pham of the UNDP and invite them to go with me to Jumhooree Maidhan and also to see the condition of the detainees. Mr Minh Pham could not move without approval from New York and the Human Rights Commission, bound by their rules, could not respond because a majority of its members were just leaving for the USA. Mr Mujuthaba did call back ready to go, but by that time, the window had closed. This was an opportunity lost—most of the complaints of ill-treatment related to these initial hours of arrest, and had we been able to visit them, such mistreatment may have been deterred or averted.

Then I did the famous BBC interview where Nasheed and I spoke for the opposition and the government respectively. I did my best to verify the data that were given to me, including personally interviewing a number of senior NSS officers at the scene. I have never knowingly misrepresented the facts, being a student of Joseph Nye and avid believer in his “soft power” thesis, a cardinal principle of which (unlike the Machiavellian precept) is, never lie or deceive, for credibility is of utmost value.

Today, I do not regret my role during and after the emergency. When I had to announce the charges against the detainees, I spoke in the third person because I found the charges quite repulsive. My job was simply that of a reporter of a charge-sheet. But behind the scenes, I did my best to bind the hands of the old-guard. I by-passed the Foreign Minister and allowed the first EU mission to visit the detainees at Dhoonidhoo. The second time, I was overruled and the Foreign Minister met the EU delegation and fought with them, blocked access to detainees and attacked the EU in a press release against my advice and invited the condemnation of the EU. Perhaps without my intervention, the regime would have fallen faster; but regime change, an event, did not equate with democracy, and a new regime would have many priorities other than reform.

A 25-old regime would be under a lot of international pressure to either reform or get out. A new regime would be given a lot of time before pressure is put on it to pursue reform. A dying regime would be under intense international pressure to quickly build democratic institutions. A new regime will have a lot of space for excuses. So logically, a dying regime must sell a lot of reform to buy time; a new regime need not sell as much reform to buy time. But of course, it was highly unlikely, but not impossible, that a 30 year-old regime can reinvent itself and buy another term; and I don’t doubt MDP’s commitment to human rights.

My role in explaining to the old guard how the modern world worked meant that I had to do a lot of intervention in domestic matters—lecturing the Home Minister and others of the infamous Sitcom.

On at least 2 occasions, I threatened to quit if I did not get my way on leniency or release for detained activists (on one occasion, on 5 June 2005, I even copied my threat to Ali Hashim, that I would resign if Anni was not returned home before 6 pm that day and Haruge re-opened by the same deadline).

Very often, I would engineer visits by the Jail Inspection Committee (on which Afeef and Aminath Didi served) to investigate reports of the status or wellbeing of political detainees. It was for this reason that often I received calls from family and friends of political detainees to intercede with President Gayoom on behalf of several detainees. (But of course, these behind-the-scene moves were not well-known, as you can see from the entry in DO on 7 June 2005 as “Letter from Dylan: A letter to the good doctor, Phd, on certain events on the night of 5 June” See http://www.dhivehiobserver.com/letters/Good-doctor-maldives07060056.htm )

The international community did not take sides in domestic political disputes. Their interest was in advancing reform. Sappe of DO and I would frequently debate on BBC TV or elsewhere on what should come first, reform or regime change. At the end of the day, this was what divided me from MDP then and later from DRP. Where I put reform ahead of regime change, MDP found me an obstacle; where I was willing to risk regime security for reform, DRP found me a threat.

Ultimately, it was my sense that there was a great opportunity to pursue reform in the Maldives that did not lead to me to quit the Maldives when many political heavyweights abandoned Gayoom in the months following Black Friday – for them, it was the endgame, or so they thought. For me, this was the last chance to usher in a modern democracy without bloodshed. Already, as it subsequently turned out, the change has been revolutionary enough; but it has still been smooth. Regime change without reform would have been far worse than whatever has happened since Black Friday. And it was the promise of that peaceful transition of power that kept me going even in the bleakest days following Black Friday.

Anyone remember the famous debate that MDP Chair Nasheed and I had at Giyasuddin School Hall on 30 June 2005? Nasheed said all that was necessary was regime change; and I said reforms were more important. Mercifully, what we got was both regime change and reform. Both of us remember Lord Acton’s famous quote: “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely; there is no worse hearsay than that the office sanctifies the holder of it.” On this, we both agree, and always have.

For the past several months, I have been advocating the erection of a memorial for victims of torture. As that memorial goes up, I want to remind my erstwhile colleagues on the Sitcom that the reason that they today have the right to remain silent, the right to legal representation, the right to protest peacefully, the right to actively oppose the government and many of the other rights that they enjoy today are the result largely of the reform process of the past five years. And I am sure that the most important thing today for those who were locked up 5 years ago is to find ways to make people power durable—and the way to achieve it is by building institutions. The process must go on.

Ahmed Shaheed for OSA

-----------------------

No Pleasure Cruise: The Long and Winding Road from Cairo to Copenhagen

2009-07-16T16:25:00.000-07:00

Diplomacy is about saving nations; not drowning them

Some of my cabinet colleagues weren’t sure that the Maldives should participate at the Summit meeting of the Non-Aligned Movement at Sharm El-Sheikh in Egypt from 15-16 July. But they deferred to my opinion and allowed me to travel to Egypt. Having debriefed some of them on my visit to Sharm El-Sheikh just a fortnight earlier for a conference on renewable energy, I knew, and they knew, that it would not be a pleasure cruise.

On that particular visit, an Australian delegate and I had to race around Cairo Airport (I usually travel without an entourage), from the chaotic domestic terminal to the congested international terminal and plead with airline staff to get us on the connecting flight to which we reported with 57 minutes to go, just 3 minutes after they closed the check-in counter.

The other delegate from the conference, who spoke in an accent that was all so familiar to me, pressed on saying that it was imperative that she made the connection out of Dubai as well. I chimed in, as if a chorus would move the staff into swifter action.

The ground staff spoke to each other in a language that I did not understand, and minutes that seemed like an eternity, passed.

I did not relish the idea of having to stay behind in Cairo and come back to the airport another day. A million thoughts flashed across my mind—and I instantly blurted out to the fellow delegate if she read P. J. O’Rourke. “Yeah, Holidays in Hell,” she replied. “So you remember the bit about Cairo then?” By the time we finished relating our apprehensions to P.J. O’Rourke, and found out that we had attended the same university in Brisbane, the airline staff said that we could be checked-in!

The good news did not distract her from O’Rourke as she instantly ran carrying her Waltzing Matilda through the Immigration lines with an airline escort and proceeded to the boarding gate. I did not bandwagon or follow. Like Forrest Gump, I decided to line-up behind the nearest immigration queue.

And I ran into Murphy’s law! This turned out to be slowest line. Minutes passed. I learned that a line-up is not necessarily a queue, and a queue is not necessarily linear! While I waited, and sweated, and thought myself a Gump, I typed an sms to my Chief of Protocol, who was somewhere in Male, saying: “Lessons from near misses: 90 minutes are not enough to catch a connection in Cairo!” Then I deleted the sms when I realised that I wasn’t gonna make it in time to the boarding gate! I thought of the quarrel Maria Didi and I had on BBC a while ago over Egypt and related matters. But I turned my attention to using all my powers of persuasion to let the guys ahead of me let me pass ahead of them.

And thank God, they did! And so I made it! (And dismissed all recollections of the BBC interview!)

So when, a few days later, the Finance Ministry says that I shouldn’t go to Sharm El-Sheikh, I didn’t need any persuasion.

And I am a NAM sceptic and have been for a long time. I advised Gayoom not to go Havana in 2006, but he wouldn’t miss out on the chance to revisit Havana after 28 years! But President Nasheed heeded my advice and decided not to attend the NAM in Egypt.

But it would have been wrong for the Maldives to be totally absent from the NAM Summit. After all, even the Americans were attending the Summit—under the new Obama dispensation! And with over hundred delegations present, it would be an economically efficient way of carrying out numerous bilateral business meetings. So, P. J. O’Rourke or not, I ended up in Sharm El-Sheikh again.

The NAM meeting in Egypt has only reinforced my NAM scepticism. The Final Report comes to several hundred pages, and as I leafed through it, I was utterly dismayed by a number of equivocations. Terrorism is bad, no doubt. But NAM, in my view, can still not say, categorically, that it is wrong to kill non-combatants, or blow up women and children. NAM still does not believe that human rights are universal – it seems quite allergic to civil and political rights. And NAM is in true form when it comes to climate change and sombrely speaks about the “historical and differentiated responsibility”—yeah, that should save the Maldives, no doubt, if we quickly grow gills, as President Nasheed recently told Senator Legardo from the Philippines. But we cannot dissent from the Third World consensus!

The Melian Dialogue

So the more I read the document, the more I felt like the people of Melos. Before me were the King of Traditional Kings Qaddafi, our host Mubarak, the renowned Bouteflika, the much heralded King of Swaziland, all not out batsmen with centuries to their credit. But my mind raced passed the centurions and the centuries to the Peloponnesian Wars and Thucydides. Although my eyes were on the speech that my able staff had drafted for me, what was going through my mind was the Melian dialogue: “the strong will do what they can and the weak must suffer what they must”.

How can I say that to this so-called august body? Tiny Maldives must not ruffle the feathers of the big birds. But we are going down to drown, unless global carbon emissions are cut back quick enough for the emissions to peak within the next decade or so. Diplomacy is about saving nations, not drowning them.

NAM boasts about collective security. But the first principle of collective security is the protection to the weakest members. But in the climate change negotiations we have so far seen nothing that would save the Maldives from drowning. We can ban water-boarding of individuals (and we should!) but endorse water-boarding a whole nation—now that’s a line for PJ! Every time I saw Copenhagen 2009 written in the speech, it read back at me as Munich 1938. The Maldives is the new Sudetenland.

Obviously, NAM isn’t going to save the Maldives.

Maldives Delegation to Make a Splash at Copenhagen

So I came out to do what I effectively came here to do. I met the Bangladeshi’s and gave them the heads up that we might be forced into a maverick position if nothing good was going to come out of Copenhagen, that we might even stage a walk out from Copenhagen. But more urgently, I wanted to obtain some emergency pharmaceuticals from Bangladesh, needed for hospitals in the Maldives; and sought their support for the V-10 Summit in the Maldives.

With several others, mostly from the Caribbean and Pacific, I lobbied for support for the resolution that the Maldives was tabling at the UN designed to insulate the Maldives from the shocks of graduation from LDC status.

With the Australians I discussed deeper engagement with the democratic Maldives and collaboration at the Commonwealth and the UN.

With everybody, covering all regions, I lobbied for support for the Maldives candidature to the Human Rights Council. I paid particular attention to Timor Leste, not merely because the Foreign Minister Zacarias was in the same political position as I am in a coalition government, but because I am keen to obtain the endorsement of Timor Leste, a possible competitor, to our candidature to the Human Rights Council.

From Portugal, I ensured critical support to safeguard our claim to the maximum continental shelf in the Indian Ocean, and from Mauritius I learned more about the potential for us to benefit from the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission and the Indian Ocean Commission.

From Djiboujti I learned how we could keep tabs on the potential threat to the Maldives from Somali piracy, and a few lessons about warding off militant Islam.

From a number of countries, whose names I do not wish to reveal yet, I pursued how the Maldives can reclaim monies that have been lost to corruption over the past thirty-years, chalking up an operational action plan on how to identify and pursue the missing funds. Indeed, even if no one else wants to track down the embezzled funds, I am on a crusade to get them, and President Nasheed is aware of that. I am not one to ride a corrupt tiger, for, as Kennedy said, “history shows that all those who rode tigers ended up inside them”.

Indeed, as I proceeded to return to the conference hall, Robert Mugabe began to preside over the conference. I decided to wait until someone else took over the chair.

As I waited, a former High Commissioner from the SAARC region in the Maldives walked up to me and said, I still think you should not be in politics! I told him that I had not forgotten his advice, and that is why I am so attached to the OSA, and told him that I was not going back in until Mugabe left the chair. “It’s more that politics had joined me than me joining politics,” I tried to make light of it. We traded a few quips about the post-Westphalian state, the Wars of the Roses and how DRP lost the election last year, and jumped from topic to topic, from Kerensky to Trotsky, and the possibility of joint representation in Moscow. Yes, I agreed: it would be a good idea for the Maldives to be jointly represented in Moscow, teaming up with a SAARC partner.

And when Mugabe finally left the Chair, I returned to my seat and re-worded my draft speech to include a call on NAM countries to accede to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and urged them to seek effective caps on carbon emissions so that the rising seas will not exceed beyond 0.8 metres within the next 100 years.

The Maldives statement may not be music to many ears. But that is because the cries of help from a drowning person are never musical; did the last dodo sound like Dido?

And tomorrow I head out to Cairo. Once bitten twice shy, I have allowed myself some 6hours of transit time!

But I leave Sharm El-Sheikh hopefully having done enough to satisfy the Finance Minister.

I also had the opportunity to discuss at length the rise and fall of Maurice Bishop and the Grenada Revolution, a most stimulating intellectual discussion with the Foreign Minister of Grenada, on politics in small spaces, on Archie Singham’s “Hero”, on George Orwell’s “Animal Farm”, on Gerhard Casper’s “Caesarism” or in Bishop’s language, “One-Manism”.

Meanwhile friends from as far away as Australia and UK kept texting me about the disputes and disturbances in Male on Wednesday. Politics in small spaces-- but that is another story for another post.

Submitted by Ahmed Shaheed for OSA

Runnymede or Stampede: How to Avoid a Mob Over Magna Carta in the Maldives

2009-07-11T02:05:00.000-07:00

Sultan in Procession, 1940s

Last Monday, President Nasheed invited me to join him for lunch at the UK House of Lords. To my left sat Baroness D’Souza, Convenor of the Crossbench in the UK parliament; to her left sat President Nasheed and on his left was our host, Lord Bilimoria. To my right was Baron Desai, with whom I chit chatted about the respective merits of Marx and Chicago School and their relevance to the Maldives and how the Maldives could benefit from his Lordship’s expertise as an Economics Professor at LSE. To his right was Minister Aslam and to his right High Commissioner Farah.

Soon enough my attention was drawn to the conversation on politics that was going on to my left between the Baroness and the President. At an appropriate pause in their conversation, I decided I would join the political discussion, especially when I learned that the Baroness was soon going to meet Her Majesty the Head of the Commonwealth and discuss themes for the upcoming Commonwealth Heads Meeting in Trinidad.

“History has a way of repeating itself, and if that is the case, in 2014, the people of the Maldives will again take to the streets,” I said half-jokingly, and President Nasheed, who actually conceals how much of an intellectual and scholar that he really is, gave a knowing smile.

The Baroness, with a little shock, as I might have expected, asked me why I said that. “We have a strong tradition of that, and an observable regularity in the timing of these events, the people took to the streets in 1933, in 1953, in 1974, in 1993, in 2004 and therefore quite possibly in 2014,” I continued. And I briefly explained to her what these dates were, careful not to upset anyone at the table.
But after doing that, I also told her that a mob in 2014 was not a foregone conclusion.

“There are very clear ways to avoid that—what I am saying is that, if democratic consolidation does not make good progress, by 2014, the people will again express their frustration with the way they are being governed, especially if their aspirations for a proper democracy remain unfulfilled,” I quickly added.

“I hope that by democracy you don’t mean electoral democracy,” the Baroness said.

“That’s exactly the point,” I concurred. “What we have in the Maldives since autumn is a democratically elected government, but we are still a long way from liberal democracy. I expect the people to give us 5 years to consolidate democracy, but they are unlikely to usher in 2015 without enjoying the fruits of liberal democracy,” I explained.

2015 will be a watershed year. The Millennium Development Goals are to be met by that date. We may or may not measure up to all the targets.

Magna Carta 1215

But, more than the MDGs, 2015 is also a key year for reformists in the Maldives, particularly for MDP and all those who, like me, support the MDP. Why? 2015 marks the 800th anniversary of the Magna Carta. It was in June 1215, at a place called Runnymede that King John signed the Magna Carta.

The Maldives be represented at Runnymede in June 2015 – and none more appropriate than President Nasheed to be there. But we would not like to go to Runnymede merely as an electoral democracy—we will want to be a proper democracy, with working institutions and real people power. And I wouldn’t want to miss out on that event, if I am alive and kicking, and neither will MDP.

I told our hosts about the time President Nasheed and I spent in the UK, him at Liverpool and me at Aberystwyth (and I didn't have to explain to her why I went to read Strategic Studies at Coleg Prifysgol Cymru!), and how we identified with the British traditions of democracy, although local circumstances had necessitated, in my judgment, ushering in a US-style presidential system in the Maldives.

View of Old College, Aberystwyth

I then went along to explain to the Baroness about the challenges that still remain in terms of consolidating democracy in the Maldives. President Nasheed, who had made a very good impression on the Baroness with his keynote address at the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association’s Conference on Climate Change at Portcullis House in the morning, agreed.

I cited Professor Larry Diamond at the Stanford University, and his concept of a predatory society as opposed to a liberal democracy. I stressed the need to increase horizontal accountability mechanisms, such as the judiciary, the anti-corruption commission, parliamentary oversight, the rule of law and the right to information.

I also highlighted the need to strengthen vertical accountability mechanisms such as issue-based NGOs, a vibrant and independent media, and elections that were free of intimidation and corruption.

I emphasised the need for transitional justice, and lamented the fact that yesterday’s corruption was yielding tremendous political gains today—and how therefore corrupt gains made yesterday were subverting democracy-building in the Maldives today.

Professor Larry Diamond

Whenever I meet diplomats and other stakeholders, I often repeat to them lessons from our history. The point of it all is to impress upon them the need to assist the government to consolidate democracy and strengthen constitutional rule.

The history of the Maldives is replete with instances of the people deposing governments they didn’t like and installing governments of their choice. In that sense, people power has always been part of the political life in the Maldives.

Tradition has it that the Sultans ruled at the pleasure of the “Havaru”, loosely translated to mean the people of the wards of Male. The oral history of the Maldives, as told by Buraaru, frequently refers to the summoning of the Havaru to depose and install Sultans.

The generally lengthy reigns witnessed since the 19th century somehow had eroded this function of the havaru, but people power returned with the introduction of constitutional rule in 1932, as an extra-constitutional means to exercise people power, and always exposing the weakness of our governance systems.

Thus, in 1933, at the instigation of the Sultan, the people took to the streets and tore up the Constitution, and dispatched the authors of the Constitution to the British Governor’s mansion in Colombo. (The Westminster House talks of 2006, which President Nasheed, then under house arrest, and I, as Foreign Minister had set up, took place with one of the grandsons of one of those dispatched to Colombo in 1933!)
Twenty-years after that crisis, on 31 August 1953, the people again took to the streets and mobbed and killed the first president of the Maldives.

The people were back at it, albeit in unsuccessfully, on 13 June 1974, to depose President Nasir, who walked away four years later.

In 1993, a similar event nearly took place, but the Bimbi Force was pre-empted by the intervention of foreign soldiers brought in by the government to carry out a military exercise. Many will recall that as MPs were voting on a candidate for the presidency, there was a climate of fear induced by the treatment meted out to the potential challenger, Ilyas Ibrahim, and by the echo of gunfire in parts of Male.

But the people came back with a vengeance in 2003. I remember telling a nervous government in July 2004 that protests to depose the government will take place between 21 and 31 August – because Gayoom was scheduled to be in China and because the period coincided with the arrest and subsequent mobbing of Amin Didi.

As it turned out, the events took place slightly earlier, on 12-13 August.

Of course, the most successful display of people power happened in 2004, setting in train events that culminated in the installation of a new government in 2008.

Of course, there are some who think that the current drive for democracy has already failed—those who expected the country to go from darkness to light in one day. But I reckon that most people understand that democracy-building is a process and not an event, and will have the patience to wait till 2014.

Now, the new target date for an irrepressible display of people power is 2014- one year after the next elections, and one year ahead of the 800th anniversary of the Magna Carta.

And it does not matter who wins the next elections: whoever who heads this country by 2015 must either be celebrating in Runnymede or be running away on a stampede! In short, it is democracy or bust!

Memorial to Magna Carta at Runnymede, Berkshire

And so what should be the message to Her Majesty?

My instant response was to stress the need to give some real teeth to the CMAG—the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group, which now acts only after a government is toppled in a coup. I told the Baroness about the frustration since 2004 of the Maldives pro-democracy movement over the CMAG and its inability to pressure the government of Maldives to expedite reform.

“Today, 2 out of 3 countries in the world have democratically elected governments, and the ratio is higher in the Commonwealth; the Harare Declaration must be enforced, the Millbrook Action Programme must be implemented, the CMAG must be given a wider mandate to promote democracy and censure illiberal democracies: you will be surprised by how much dictators loved to be loved and therefore how much they hate to be hated, and the CMAG must be empowered to condemn dictators and embrace democrats,” I said to her.

“Democracy today is a universal value, and the Commonwealth must not be coy about promoting democracy,” I said with all the seriousness that I could muster.

“The CMAG must respond not just to breaches of the constitution but must help to strengthen constitutionalism in countries, like the Maldives, where the government and the people alike aspire to do so,” I added.

Ahmed Shaheed for OSA

Be Careful What You Mean, If You Know What I Mean!

2009-06-23T12:37:00.000-07:00

At the Tallberg Foundation in Stockholm, President Nasheed spoke about “Saving Paradise”, and I joined him in a Panel Discussion thereafter. After a while, we opened the floor for discussion and a gentleman in a grey jacket on the far left raised his hand. The moderator said, “Yes, sir, the coloured gentleman in the back, please go ahead.” The gentleman promptly joked, “Well, we are all coloured one way or another,” and proceeded to ask the question.

The incident reminded me of a few incidents where I had had difficulty using the right word.

I remember a conversation I had long ago with a young Maldivian who was going to school in India. We could never agree on what the word “indigenous” meant! He insisted that it meant “made in India”, and when I explained to him that it meant that something was native to a country or produced in that particular country, he simply uttered, “exactly!” We were in India and there was no way I could win the argument.

But I seemed to have learned nothing from that experience. A young Maldivian, I must say quite an educated person, angrily confronted me on the street one day, in February 2005, claiming that I had used disparaging language in reference to his beloved party, the MDP, in a BBC interview. He was furious and accused me of calling MDP a “suthulhi goani” – or, gunny bag! I told him that I said no such thing, but he insisted that I had called his party a “gunny bag” or "jute bag"!

Well, I told him that I had not used any insulting language but simply said that MDP was a “rag bag”. And rag bag simply means an assortment of unconnected things.

The point I was making was that, at that time, in my view,( and I see it differently today), MDP were a diverse group who shared a common hatred of Gayoom but not much besides, if you consider that there were mullahs and secular liberals in the party.
Rag bag is not a pejorative term. Granted that “rags” are not complimentary; and neither are bags, perhaps. But a rag bag is not just the addition of two words. I told him that “rag bag” was an idiom, although by now I was feeling a bit like an idiot for having used this particular idiom.

Some words have serious consequences. On 16 September 2001, speaking from the White House, President Bush said, “This crusade, this war on terrorism, is gonna take a while.” This immediately sent shivers through the Middle East and Europe, where the “crusades” referred to the wars over holy lands between Muslim Middle East and Christian Europe. Bush insisted that it was not a war against Islam, but the word played into the hands of the Jihadists in the Middle East. The statement was played time and time again over the airwaves in the Middle East, and it evoked fears of a clash of civilisations.

The term “secular” is also a similarly loaded word. For most Muslims, the word evokes enemy images, a forceful trampling upon of the rights of Muslim communities, of forced exile, imprisonment, torture and worse. Isn’t that what happened in Egypt, Syria, Iran, and Iraq? “Secular modernisers” ravaged Muslim communities and were autocratic, repressive and brutal. In Europe, however, the experience was quite the reverse, and the European secular ideal rose out of the death and destruction of the religious wars. Experience had taught Muslim communities that secularism produced dictatorships, although intrinsically there is no such association. So when secular liberals in the Maldives talk with Islamists on this subject, they are talking past each other.

“Emergency rule” was another such term. I reckon many of the Old Guard were quite at ease with the use of the term. After all, that is the norm in Egypt. But for me, and for many of my peers, “emergency rule” brings to mind the things that happened in India in 1975-77, when India was under emergency rule. I am sure the Old Guard never understood that many people had developed allergies to emergency rule.

Today, “privatisation” is becoming a confusing word in the Maldives. For some it is a reference to the Chicago School and Milton Friedman, and to a proven strategy to increase prosperity for all. For others, as recently argued by Dr Riffat Afeef in an article in Miadhu, it evokes images of imperialism, greed and corruption. It would be good to clarify what we mean exactly in this evolving debate, before the people develop allergies to it.

When President Nasheed used the term “nulafaa” during the recent parliamentary campaign, I thought he meant “mean”. But I was surprised that many of his own supporters translated that to mean “ruthless”! Democratically-elected presidents do not have the wherewithal to become ruthless; but all politicians can be mean. And that is not the same thing.

Anyone for a red herring?

Ahmed Shaheed for the OSA

Iran: More than an Election Outcome

2009-06-21T08:22:00.000-07:00

Last week, as I accompanied President Nasheed out of the Royal Palace in Stockholm, we heard loud chants coming from a crowd of people with placards just at the foot of the castle. We could read some of the placards in English saying, “Where is my vote?”, and instantly knew that this was about the vote in Iran. It is said that politicians are drawn to crowds like bees to honey -- we made our way towards the crowd.
Dressed in formal wear in a warm Stockholm mid-summer evening, the crowd instantly surmised that there was a VIP amongst us, someone who could broadcast their plea. As a small section of the crowd tore away and approached us, we introduced ourselves, and we gave them a “three-in-one” “instant mix” of the political struggles in the Maldives on democracy, free elections and people power.
The crowd were in fact protesting against Ericsson, pleading them not to provide the means with which the Iranian authorities were jamming the communication abilities of the Iranian people – we had just had chit-chats with the CEO of Ericsson up in the Kings Garden at the Reception for the participants of Volvo Ocean Race, which the Ericsson team had just won.
I feel for the Iranian people—quite apart from who won or lost the elections. It is a nation of great potential, but on the knife-edge of a number of tipping points. And when I heard about the election results and the responses in Iran to those announcements, I recalled an Iranian I had shared an office with for three years in Brisbane, in the early 1990s.
His name was Hossein, and, like me, he was doing a PhD at the University of Queensland. His thesis was a bomb: “How and Why One Party State Regimes Fall?” Of course, in the frenzy of the post-Cold War world, his comparative study was focussed on the dictators that were falling like ten-pins those days. And he also included in his study the fall of the Shah.
I agreed to proof-read his work. Over the three years, I got to read and re-read the chapters that he was writing, and I attended the seminars that he was required to hold on his research. His work was good.
But I did not realise just how good his research and hypotheses were until I had to put them to test in the Maldives from 2004 to 2008, to contribute to managing a disintegrating political order and then to tip over: to repair Humpty Dumpty long enough for a peaceful transition, and then to secure that transition.
Hossein’s thesis held its ground in the “soft power” showdown with the Gene Sharps and the Ot Pors, who could not match Hossein’s work for its intensity, clarity, and objectivity. I am not saying that there is a direct contradiction amongst them, but that whereas Sharp and Ot Por were focussed on advocacy of their point of view, Hossein’s was a dispassionate research which examined the topic from competing perspectives. I dare say that insights from Hossein’s research accounted for the confidence and conviction with which I took on the old guard, pushing for change from within to create space for people power, and then moving on to join the people in that space. To Hossein and his research I owe a great debt.
I have not kept in touch with Hossein for a number of years now. Whatever happened to his thesis, the events unfolding in Iran now are going to judge his thesis. What is unfolding in Iran right now is not about who won or lost the election; but about what will prevail – people power or state power? Do state institutions have enough credibility to exert sufficient authority? Or will any attempts to exert such authority only strengthen those who oppose the regime? Or would the failure to exert such authority not result in conceding more ground to the protestors? Or would not the assertion of control just become the tipping point?
Will the regime not crack under the pressure of widespread protests? Are not dissenting opinions among senior clerics the first signs of this? The question then is: does the regime have enough authority to exercise sufficient power AND enough power to exercise the necessary authority? Will soft power draw enough credibility to defeat hard power? Or could there be a role for what is today called smart power?
Judging by Hossein’s thesis, as of Saturday, Iran has not yet reached the tipping point. Things can still go either way. And things are moving very fast—and at this moment, it looks like they can take a life of their own, tipping the balance in favour of people power.
And of course, whichever way the events go, what is at stake is not Hossein’s thesis. What is at stake is something of great strategic significance, which could bring about a historic triumph or calamitous tragedy to the Muslim Ummah.
And at the end of the day, what drew President Nasheed and me to that crowd protesting outside the Royal Castle in Stockholm was that recognition—that either a great tragedy or historic triumph was in the making. Where human life is at risk, doing nothing is never an option for a politician who just picked up the Anna Lindh Prize for Human Rights, or for any human being who believes in the sanctity of life and people power.

Submitted by Ahmed Shaheed for the OSA
____________

Murder Most Foul

2009-06-14T15:03:00.000-07:00

The abuse, torture and murder of an 8-month baby is the sickest story I have ever come across in the Maldives. I was utterly shocked and outraged by what I heard. How can people descend to such cruelty?

I had heard that Hon Nasheed MP had submitted a bill to the parliament to address some of these issues. Good, I thought. Of course, there must be greater legal protection given to children and requisite changes made to the legal framework. But changing the legal framework alone will not be enough.

We must really ask ourselves how safe our children are? Does the government have appropriate policies to detect abuse and deter abuse? And is there something that we, the people, can do? A successful strategy must essentially focus on detection, deterrence and prevention.

I suppose no one was surprised to hear that drug abuse was related to the horrible crime. A society in which drug abuse is so widespread will provide safety to no one. Life will be cheap in a country where drug kingpins ostensibly operate with impunity. A polity in which corruption pays will throw up unspeakable crimes.

The brutal murder must make us all stop and think about where the country is headed to, why we have reached this horrible point, and what we are doing wrong. Is life becoming so cheap in this country? Have we lost our souls?

For me, a rude awakening came in 1997, when the government put 14 new islands to tender as tourist resorts. There was a frantic rush by ministers to team up with businessmen to bid for these islands. And there were businessmen frantically trying to enlist Ministers to team up with them to submit bids. To me it seemed that businessmen believed that without a Minister as a partner, they would not win a resort. And worse than that, the Ministers seemed to believe that their name would help secure a resort! What I am saying? The elites of this country had sold their souls, for corruption and material greed.

Such has been the greed and spiritual decay of the elites of this country that it has catapulted entire sections of society into despair, destitution, decadence, and drug abuse. Ours therefore is a society coming apart at the seams, descending into a nightmarish hell. It is one that is unable to care for the weak, vulnerable and helpless, because its strong and powerful have sold their souls to reckless greed, rampant corruption and other shameful deeds. There is so much anger, so much violence and so much hatred just bubbling beneath the surface, that so many of us are probably randomly-timed walking bombs.

For too long, our laws have been used to help the near and dear and punish others. For too long, justice has only served the interests of the powerful. For too long we have allowed our children to be consumed by drugs and violence. For too long we have blatantly promoted double standards and used ethical standards as a tool of social and political hegemony. For too long, the Maldives has been a tale of two cities. In a society in which priority is given to the protection of the rich and powerful, the weak and vulnerable are exposed to the most heinous and unspeakable crimes.

So a bill in parliament, while necessary, is not enough. It is time that we begin to really care about people, promote civil society groups, and allocate enough resources to protect the weakest and the most vulnerable.

Freedom of Expression and Defamation: the Kosovo Test Case

2009-06-11T11:20:00.000-07:00

OSA welcomes that initiatives being taken in the Maldives to strengthen the freedom of expression. It also welcomes the report of the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, Mr Frank La Rue and his calls for measures to strengthen freedom of expression in the Maldives.

The OSA would like to note the contributions that its patrons continue to make to promote freedom of expression in the Maldives. As Frank La Rue noted, the former Attorney-General, Dr Hassan Saeed had parked the provisions in the penal code that criminalised defamation- an extremely difficult thing to do at a time when Dhivehi Observer and Koimala were taking press freedom to the gutter.

Former Justice Minister Jameel was quite enthusiastic about providing civil remedies for defamation – as an alternative to criminalising slander and libel.

Former and current Foreign Minister Shaheed always spoke in defence of a free press, and had indeed invited Frank La Rue to undertake the visit to the Maldives. It was he who began to celebrate Press Freedom Day in the Maldives, back in 2006.

Despite being champions of freedom of expression, Dr Shaheed last week filed a defamation suit against Umar Naseer. This has come as a surprise for some people, who had hoped that Dr Shaheed would not take anyone to court on a defamation suit. It was he who had demanded in 2007, when civil remedies for defamation were being introduced, that all ministers must make a public declaration never to pursue even civil proceedings against defamation.

So last week came surprising U-turn, or so it would appear, until his statements and actions in this matter are closely scrutinised.

In filing the suit, Dr Shaheed’s lawyer, Dr Jameel said that one of the purposes of the suit was to set some legal precedents in the country. Although one fears that Dr Shaheed’s lawsuit could limit the scope for freedom of expression, it can, on the contrary, expand the boundaries of free expression in the country. No one will argue that it is time that the judiciary set certain standards for litigation in defamation.

Dr Jameel is amply qualified to aim at those high standards which should make his PhD supervisors at the University of London very happy indeed.

In fact, Dr Shaheed’s handling of the case has already been different from the older methods of dealing with defamation. The first of these is that he voluntarily chose the civil lawsuit over criminal proceedings. He could have easily chosen criminal litigation, but to the surprise and delight of many journalists, chose to seek civil remedies.

The second is that he chose not to take any of the journalists or media outlets to court on the matter. A number of media platforms repeated or disseminated the defamatory allegations. This distinction that Dr Shaheed is making has significant implications for strengthening press freedom in the country, for a firm legal basis for this distinction is likely to be established in the court.

And the third is that he speaks about setting legal precedents. So far in the Maldives, there is no distinction made between alleged defamation of public figures and private citizens, between compensatory and punitive damages, and between contemptuous damages and aggravated damages. Neither has the usual defences for defamation, such as fair comment and public interest, been cited or contested in court. Nor have mitigating or aggravating circumstances been discussed. At least some, if not all, of these concepts are likely to be discussed in a defamation suit.

In terms of setting legal precedents, a lot will depend on how Dr Jameel lays out the arguments. One hopes that the argumentation will provide for the adoption of modern standards of defamation proceedings. If that is indeed the case, by the time the lawsuit ends, journalists might feel more secure about reporting on matters of public interest, without reckless disregard for the truth.

One also hopes that Dr Jameel’s argumentation will introduce to the Maldivian judiciary new concepts in the domain of freedom of expression and set a very high bar on defamation, through a discussion of legitimate defences against defamation, the concept of malice and reckless disregard, of libel per se and aggravated damages.

At the least, we should hear how the Foreign Minister responds to the call by Frank La Rue that state officials do not pursue any defamation lawsuits. What is the international norm on this? Let us hear this in the Court.

ISLAM AND DEMOCRACY: 10TH ANNUAL CONFERENCE

2009-06-10T22:23:00.000-07:00

CSID Report

How to Improve Relations with the Muslim World - Challenges and Promises Ahead

CSID's 10th Annual ConferenceTuesday, May 5, 2009Sheraton Crystal City Hotel
Conference Report

The election of President Barack Hussein Obama on November 4, 2008, meant perhaps more for the rest of the world than it did for the United States. It signified a turn away from the divisive politics of the past administration and the start of a new era of American politics grounded in the principles of justice, freedom, and good governance, both in domestic as well as foreign affairs. It is with the hope of the positive changes this new administration will bring in terms of its relationship with the governments and people of the Muslim World that the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy (CSID) held its 10th Annual Conference in the Sheraton Crystal City Hotel on Tuesday, May 5, 2009, centered on the very timely topic of "How to Improve Relations with the Muslim World: Challenges and Promises Ahead."

To facilitate the introduction and pursuant discussion on this complex topic, the conference was divided into four separate panels, with special lunch and banquet dinner sessions.

The first session of the conference event addressed the issue of "Developing Democracy in the Muslim World." The first speaker on this panel was Ms. Geneive Abdo, a foreign policy analyst at the Century Foundation, whose research focuses on contemporary Iran and political Islam. Her presentation discussed the importance of United States engagement with the Islamic movements of the Middle East, particularly to ease tensions between the United States and Iran. While "policy makers focus on the result, rather than on the process" of integration and open dialogue, she said that it is "important to engage not only Iran, but Islamic political movements" within Iran, and indeed around the Arab World, as they have widespread constituencies and are the most popular political parties in the Middle East.

Ms. Cecile Coronato, a legislative assistant with the Project on Middle East Democracy (POMED) focused on Iranian civil society [paper] and the encouraging signs that point to promising democratic reforms in the future. "Iran's well-educated, young, vibrant population has the potential to encourage democracy," said Ms. Coronato as she discussed the vibrant, progressive, yet often overlooked civil society thriving within Iran. "In a world where security interests often trump respect for human rights, the US should make sure it does not forget the Iranian people in order to improve relations with the Iranian government," which is something the Obama Administration ought to keep in mind as it moves forward in improving relations with the Islamic Republic.

Dr. Sudha Ratan,Professor and Chair of the Department of Political Science at Augusta State University in Georgia presentation was titled "Integrating Women into Democratic Governance: A comparison of Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India." [paper] In Pakistan and Afghanistan, she said, the governments have "taken a series of measures to reserve seats for women in elections, which has proven to be quite effective" in increasing the visibility of women in politics; despite these efforts, however, the women, once in office, often find themselves "unable to develop an effective strategy" to carry out their agendas. In Pakistan, women are in a bit of a better position due to the strong civil society movement, although the tensions between the various interpretations of Islam and the role of women in politics has become an increasing problem for these women to handle. In India, there is a large number of women in government at the local level, as opposed to the realities of Pakistan and Afghanistan, which has been supported by Muslim reform movements and links to the Gulf States.

In the second session, titled "Prospects for Peace in the Middle East," focused on the 62-year long Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Each of the speakers on this panel will offer their own unique perspectives on the present state of affairs and their hopes for a just resolution. Dr. Halim Rane,Deputy Director of the Griffith Islamic Research Unit and lecturer in the National Centre of Excellent in Islamic Studies in Australia, gave his presentation on "Trading Rockets for Resolutions: Restructuring Palestinian Resistance in the Context of International Legal and Political Dynamics." [paper] Dr. Rane insisted that a just resolution of this conflict is central to improving relations between the United States and the Muslim World, as "the Palestinian cause is popularly seen as synonymous with an Islamic religious cause" Indeed, he said, "the peace process is in need of a framework, guidelines, and basic standards," but he remains highly optimistic for a just peace in the Middle East.

Dr. Mohamed Nimer, Assistant Professor at the School of International Service at American University address was titled "Hamas, Likud, and the Obama Quet for Peace in the Middle East," [paper] and focused primarily on the impact of the prominent political parties within Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories, namely Likud and Hamas, respectively. He said that "the problem is not that there is an entity called Israel, the problem is that the Palestinian state is not existent. Neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians need to change their narrative. Once peace takes hold, people will be conditioned by it and you will no longer have people who have spent their entire existence in a state of conflict."

Dr. Nathan Funk, assistant Professor of Peace and Conflict Studies at the University of Waterloo in Canada spoke on "Peacemaking between America and the Muslim World: Beginning a New Chapter in U.S.-Islamic Relations?" [paper] His presentation focused on the necessary steps the new Obama Administration ought to embrace in mending the strained relations between the United States and the Muslim World. He said that "what has happened in the past cannot be changed, but the overall meaning of those events is subject to change," and added that "finding the political courage for this kind of thing is not easy as there is an overwhelming temptation and tendency to preserve political capital," but that it is not only possible, as the new President himself as exemplified, but is imperative, and must continue to sculpt future policies.

The luncheon and roundtable session centered around a discussion on the future prospects on the coexistence of Islam and Democracy in the Muslim World. The first speaker was Dr. John L. Esposito,University Professor and Director of the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University. Dr. Esposito noted that "what we see is that in many parts of the world the majority of Muslims want what we call 'democratization.' But many of them want a notion of modernization that includes religious values, in one way or another, that includes shari'ah as they see it, shari'ah that limits government and guarantees the moral values of society", which he adds is not so different than what most Americans want in their government. "The challenge facing us," he said "is to re-imagine what it is to talk about democracy, democracy in the Muslim world, the role that governments in and outside the Muslim world need to play. We need a new paradigm."

Dr. Ahmed Shaheed, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Maldives, was the second luncheon speaker. "There are those who reject outright any notion of compatibility between Islam and Democracy, and many of them see a colossal confrontation between the two," [paper] says Dr. Shaheed, which many may see as discouraging in the struggle for democratization in the Muslim World. While "democracy has not yet become entrenched" in the Arab World, there is cause for hope,as seen in the recent democratic transition in the Republic of Maldives, which was facilitated both by strong foreign actors as well as "unrelenting domestic, internal pressure." The challenge for the rest of the Muslim World, primarily the Arab World, is the need to develop a "change in mentality" so that a transition away from autocratic regimes to democratic governments is made possible and permanent.

The topic of the third panel discussion was "The Role of Religion in Developing Democracy." The first speaker on this topic was Dr. Laith Kubba, Senior Director for the Middle East and North Africa Program at the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). His presentation was titled "Is Islam Relevant to Democracy Building in Muslim Countries," gave the example of the Turkish budding democracy and its failure of excluding Islam from the process. "The reality is that Islam strongly influenced the lives of nearly 100 nations for more than one thousand years and it is an inseparable component of their cultural identity;" thus, the debate now, within Turkey is "no longer about whether or not Islam should be addressed in public life but it is about what form of Islam" ought to be incorporated and why. "Whatever we do has to be culturally sensitive."

Mr. Alejandro J. Beutel, a Junior Fellow at the Minaret of Freedom Institute, and Dr. Imad-ad-Dean Ahmed, the President and Director of the Minaret of Freedom Institute, presented a joint paper on "Religious or Policy Justification for Violence: a Quantitative Content Analysis of Osama bin Laden's Statements." [paper] Mr. Beutel said that "in the same vein that Osama bin Laden plays on the policy issue to manipulate Muslims to join his cause Western nations must address these grievances with substantive action so that they do not provide proof for those who are skeptical about their rhetoric." He highlighted interesting discoveries that came out in the in-depth studies of bin Laden's public speeches and written documents, in which he switches around in using religious and political justifications for violence depending on his target audience.

Ms. Amina Rasul-Bernardo, Lead Convenor of the Philippine Council for Islam and Democracy and Managing Trustee of the Magbassa Kita Foundation Inc, whose talk was titled "The Role of Religion in Peacemaking: The Philippines 'Ulama." [paper] "Tensions where religion is invoked... arise not simply between adherence of difference between practices and beliefs, but also between secular and religious groups," which has added to the challenges not only within her native Philippines, but in conflicts around the world. Ms. Rasul-Bernardo notes that "the changes in geo-politics in the Philippines have not only contributed to the conflict, but have put liberties at risk." In seeking a peaceful resolution to the domestic conflicts of the Philippines between the majority Catholic and minority Muslim populations, the religious leaders, both Catholic and Muslim, have been "doing everything they can to resolve the ethnic conflict," as they are seen as the most trustworthy and credible people by the population at large.

Dr. Nathan Brown, Professor of Political Science and International Affairs at George Washington University, closed this segment of the conference with his presentation titled "Islamist Movements in the Electoral Process in the Arab World." In response to the concerns of Western democracies of the radicalization of some Islamic political parties in the Muslim World, Dr. Brown points out that "it is often the case that behavior produces ideology - if you take a look at the range of political behavior by islamic political actors, you find enormous variation." He added that "the political context in which [political parties] operate is a much better indicator of how they behave than their ideology is." Thus, he insisted that Islam is not the problem; rather, the dire situations in which these political parties operate have unfortunately driven them to extremes. He concluded with the position that "the political party that is allowed to form and is given a long leach will integrate itself as a viable political actor."

Dr. Osama Kadi,the founder and president of the Syrian Center for Political and Strategic Studies (SCPSS), spoke on "Improving Relations between the U.S. and the Muslim World." [paper] His presentation was titled "Improving American-Syrian Relations: Toward a Strategic Plan," which begins by pointing out that, in recent history, "the US State department tailored its relationship with Syria based on its political interests and ignored all other aspects of the potential relationships." After highlighting a countless number of successful joint projects between the European Union and the Syrian Arab Republic in recent years, in the areas of business, gas, energy, banking, and institutional and infrastructural modernization, Dr. Kadi expressed his hope that "the United States will purse principled and sustained with all the nations in the region, and that will include Iran and Syria," for the mutual benefit of both sides.

Mrs. Sara Khorshid, Egyptian journalist and managing editor of IslamOnline.net's "Politics in Depth" section, talked about "The U.S. Favoring of Liberal Opposition, Pro-Good Governance Forces in the Muslim World: Assessment of the Past and Recommendations for the Future." [paper] Mrs. Khorshid's position on the flagrant U.S. support and backing for liberal individuals and forces in Egypt is that it is counter-productive to the push for democracy as Liberal Egyptians are the least popular and favorable in the country. She addresses not only the "pro-democracy policies of the US government, but also pro-liberalism attitudes and positions in US media and culture." She posits that it is because of the "fear of Islamists" and the American definition of democracy that excludes other variations, that the United States continues to support these unpopular forces.

Mr. Atef Saadawi, managing editor of the Democracy Review Quartely, a publication of the Al-Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies in Cairo, spoke about "Promoting Democracy in the Arab World: New Ideas for U.S. Policy." [paper] Mr. Saadawi begins by pointing out that "within the Arab world, there are three groups of main political actors: current governing regimes, secular parties both liberal and leftist, and Islamist parties," and the successful implementation of democracy will depend on the integration and balance between these three groups. If the United States is to earnestly press for democracy, it must allow for a natural balance to take place between these three forces; it must not impose any particular outcome out of its own preferences. Mr. Saadawi ends with a reminder to the new Administration to "recognize that military force is the least effective way to promote democratic change abroad. Military force should never be presented as an effort to promote democracy abroad."

Dr. Anwar Haddam,President and co-founder of the Movement for Liberty and Social Justice (MLJS) in Algeria, presented a paper titled "The Obama Administration: Engaging the Muslim World with a New Mindset; Challenges and Opportunities." [paper] Dr. Haddam began with what he called "a historical statement" made by President Obama in his inaugural address: "To the Muslim World, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect." Dr. Haddam continued to comment that "Islam is the major element of the Muslim identity. Obama's inauguration speech was the first time a president recognized that." He noted that President Obama's inaugural address was critical in that it openly admitted to the realities that "there has been erosion of trust between the Muslim and Western worlds, particularly in the last seven years," but insisted that true positive change must come from internal pressure in Washington.

At the final session, the Hesham Reda Memorial Lecture and Annual Banquet Dinner, centered around the topic of "Building Bridges of Understanding between the U.S. and the Muslim World." Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison opened the banquet dinner with his speech about the importance of building and maintaining these bridges by recognizing commonalities. "We live in a world that is so incredibly inter-connected, said the Congressman. "As Americans, of whatever faith, we have to be the kind of people who seek the new relationship..." and not shun away from that which is perceived as foreign or different. He continued to say that "bridging the gap is not us building bridges over here; it's building bridges on both sides," and calls on the entire world community to make the necessary concessions in order to be able to build a future of mutual respect and freedom.

Ms. Madelyn E. Spirnak,Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of State and overseer of the Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI), the Broader Middle East and North Africa (BMENA) initiative, and the Near East Bureau's Press and Public Diplomacy Office, underlined and reiterated a new era of policy toward the Middle East. [paper] Ms. Spirnak highlighted that President Obama is committed to building bridges with the Muslim world and seeks a new dialogue on the full range of issues we face and that "he speaks of new partnerships on issues of education, healthcare, livelihoods," and more. "Both he and Secretary of State Clinton focus on the fact that the challenges we face are too great to limit our responses to interactions between governments." She reminded everyone that "public diplomacy lies at the heart of the country's smart power," and that "true public diplomacy is about engagement, about listening as much as talking," which is something this Administration is absolutely committed to doing.

Dr. Shibley Telhami, Anwar Sadat Professor for Peace and Development at the University of Maryland and a senior fellow of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institute began his address by reminding the conference attendees of the significance of the present-day and its role as a turning point in history: "This an important moment to reflect on how we can revise the post-9/11 prism through which Americans look at the Muslim world." He posited that most people see the world through what he called "prisms of pain": "The Arab-Israeli issue remains the prism of pain through which Arabs see America. It is a psychological predisposition to evaluate America primarily through this prism." Standing for democracy and human rights "is one of the strengths of America," says Dr. Telhami, as he expresses his excitement and hope that the current Administration will follow through with its promises.

Dr. Saad Eddin Ibrahim, Professor of Political Sociology and a visiting Professor at Harvard University, but better known as a human rights defender and democracy activist in Egypt and across the Arab World highlighted three burdens of Muslim Americans: "There is no escape from the burdens by virtue of being Americans and being Muslims. Your first burden should be to this country. For first duty is to be a good American, a good Muslim American. Always vote." He then reminded everyone to count their blessings "in being part of an open, democratic society," a luxury that most of the world does not enjoy. In relation to the past Administration's restriction of certain rights to Arab and Muslim Americans, he reminded the conference attendees that their "freedom is never secure or enjoyable" if their fellow citizens do not also have it. He ended by saying that "we must use our liberty to secure our liberty for all," and continue to struggle for the successful and permanent transition from authoritarian, oppressive regimes in the Muslim World to great democracies.

A very significant aspect of every CSID annual conference is to present a "Muslim Democrat of the Year" award to a very honorable and deserving recipient. This year's recipient was Dr. Ahmed Shaheed, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Maldives, for his great sacrifice and instrumental role in the long and difficult struggle to transform his country into a democracy. Dr. Shaheed dedicated the award to everyone in the Maldives, to his family, to his colleagues in the former cabinet who joined him in creating a more democratic Maldives. To the current president for relentlessly challenging autocratic order, and to the outgoing president for having the good grace to step down after he lost the election.

After a long day of inspiring and engaging presentations and pursuant discussions on the various topics presented, the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy celebrated the successful completion of its 10th Annual Conference. As many notable attendees and panelists had noted throughout the event, the fact that CSID was able to continue its important work relentlessly for the past ten years is an accomplishment in and of itself. There have certainly been very difficult times endured in the past ten years, but it is with the hopes that the new Obama Administration brings, in addition to the renewed commitment of politicians, scholars, and ordinary citizens from around the world, that CSID looks to the future and continues in its pursuit for justice, respect, and equality for all people.

This report was written by Mariem R. Masmoudi, currently a CSID intern and a student in International Politics, at University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

J-Curve and the Maldives: From the Horse's Mouth

2009-06-10T07:37:00.000-07:00

The article below was published on The New ForeignPolicy.com
http://eurasia.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/05/04/call_as_go_the_maldives_so_goes_the_world

Call: As go the Maldives, so goes the world

Mon, 05/04/2009 - 7:42pm
By Ian Bremmer
Three years ago, I wrote a book called The J Curve: A New Way to Understand Why Nations Rise and Fall. The J curve is a visual representation of the relationship between a country's "stability" and its "openness." Stability is a measure of a government's ability to weather a crisis. Openness is a measure of the extent to which ideas, information, people, money, goods and services flow freely across a state's borders and within the country itself.
Some states (North Korea, Iran, Cuba, and others) are stable only because they're relatively closed. In these countries, a governing elite works hard to isolate citizens from the outside world -- and, where possible, from one another. Other countries (Canada, Italy, India, Germany, the United States, Japan, Norway and dozens of others) are stable precisely because they're open.
When a country that is stable only because it is closed finally begins to open up, it slides down the left side of the curve toward the dip in the J, a point of maximum instability. You can't move from left (closed) to right (open) along the J without passing through that dip. In the real world, that means that if relatively closed countries like Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan, or Burma decided to open up a bit by holding genuinely free and fair national elections with full coverage in local media, they would almost certainly reap the whirlwind. That's why the governments of closed states work so hard to keep them closed.
Which brings us, of course, to the Maldive Islands.
The Republic of Maldives is best known as an absurdly beautiful string of pearls adorning the Indian Ocean about 400 miles southwest of Sri Lanka. It's a nation composed of more than a thousand small islands in danger of slipping beneath the waves as global warming raises sea levels.
Last weekend, the country's foreign minister, Dr. Ahmed Shaheed, discussed The J Curve during an interview to illustrate why his former political party, the Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP), will plunge the country into chaos while his new party, the Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP), will help the country avoid this risk. Here's an excerpt of what he said:
"The J-Curve ... speaks of countries which are autocratic and undemocratic and when they democratize, they go through a J-Curve and you go through a little dip. That dip is when things are unstable and things are a bit chaotic but then you eventually improve to become more stable. So we are in an unstable period. The danger is in some countries, they move back towards the left and go straight back to autocracy. So if DRP comes back in we'll go back towards the left of the curve. And we can forget about democracy for the next 30 years because they will tell us that democracy produced a government that didn't work.
I cite this comment for two reasons. First, it's kind of gratifying to have a country's foreign minister like your work -- and help make an argument that you believe in. Second, and more to the point, though I don't entirely share Dr. Shaheed's view that an authoritarian country can't become more open to the rest of the world (so far so good for China), he's making a point that applies awfully well to the risks that the global financial crisis now poses for dozens of countries around the world.
Worsening economic conditions have exacerbated pre-existing political problems in Russia, Ukraine, Pakistan, Turkey, Mexico, Argentina and many other countries. All these states have begun to slide toward the dip in the J curve and the turmoil it represents. And all those who hold political power in these countries must decide how their governments should respond. They can hunker down, build new walls, and favor near-term stability at the expense of investment in longer-term prosperity. Or they can double down on the power of free markets and international trade to expand their economic horizons and continue to engage with other governments in finding solutions to seemingly intractable common problems.
There is nothing inevitable about globalization's progress. There are plenty of political officials around the world, insecure in their positions, with obvious motives to advance populist/nationalist/protectionist arguments at the expense of trade, foreign investment, and immigration. But if a state's leaders and lawmakers turn their backs on the increasingly free exchange of ideas, information, people, money, goods and services, its citizens -- and the global economy -- will only be the poorer for it.

Obama and New Beginnings

2009-06-10T04:10:00.000-07:00

The historic speech delivered by President Obama in Cairo is uplifting for those who have been agonising over the horrible impact of the war on terror on relations between the Muslim world and the West. Such people, of course condemn in the strongest terms the acts of terror that slaughtered thousands of Americans and others right before everyone's eyes on that brutal Tuesday morning on 9 September 2001. Terrorism no doubt had to be combatted. But the experience of the Bush years, particularly the practices at Guantanamo Detention Center and the invasion of Iraq and its aftermath clearly showed that the right thing can be done in an awfully wrong manner.

How much of Obama therefore is real change and how much of Obama is an attempt to recover the lost moral high ground? The Muslim world will judge Obama not by glowing speeches but by what happens on the ground, especially by what happens in the Middle East. To be exact, by what happens to the Palestinians. Obama clearly is showing real interest in resolving the issue, but it would be foolish to think that he can put a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict ahead of his own re-election. But that still does not mean that he cannot pursue a more balanced Middle East policy.

But that balance will be tipped not just by those who would be lobbying on Israel's behalf. They could just as well be tipped the wrong way by the Arabs. There is a fundamental dilemma in US policy towards the Muslim world, in particular towards the Middle East. Too often, autocratic governments in the Middle East win the hearts and minds of the American strategists while the demos in the Arab streets frighten US policy-makers. Jeane Kirkpatrick's apt phrase alluded to dictators and double-standards.

Will Obama be able finally to throw caution to the wind, ditch friendly dictators and embrace the Islamist parties in the Middle East? Clearly, such an approach requires a more nuanced understanding of Muslim communities and greater confidence in dealing with Muslim communities. Everything we have seen and heard from Obama to date seems to suggest that he might have the right mindset to just do that.

Bridges are not built from just one side; they must be built on both sides and meet half way. Alignment and symmetry, in terms of height, width, direction, design and material clearly help. The Muslim world must also therefore reach out to the West. There are increasing noises in the Muslim world about democracy, human rights, tolerance and global peace. Even in Saudi Arabia there are powerful voices for reform, moderation and human rights. But there are also disturbing trends and frightening noises.

The Maldives is no longer marginal to this great emerging civilisational discourse. Obama's speech elicited considerable interest in the Maldives, for both the government and the opposition to comment on it. The local media took a lot of interest in the speech delivered by UK Foreign Secretary Miliband calling for fresh engagment between the Muslim world and the west. The US too has taken a lot of interest in the democratic transition in the Maldives, awarding the Foreign Minister with the prestigious Muslim Democrat of the Year Award, a sign that powerful people wish to hold the Maldives as an example for the Muslim world. From Indonesia to Maldives and Morocco, the Muslim world is embracing democracy.

As these countries show, and as Larry Diamond powerfully argues, there is no reason why Muslim countries cannot embrace democracy. Perhaps, all too often, the powers that be found common and convenient strategic convergence with dictators in the Muslim world to the detriment of popular democratic movements.

But with a more confident and nuanced approach to the Muslim world by the US, there is greater prospects for demcoracy in the Muslim world. As many Muslims know, there is nothing inherently un-Islamic in good governance, rule of law and democracy. If Obama keeps up, and if other countries join the Maldives, then a real new beginning between the Muslim Ummah and the West is a real possibility.

State of the Economy in the Maldives: Challenges and Solutions

2008-06-16T01:50:00.000-07:00

OSA held a panel discussion on the state of the economy in the Maldives, with distinguished guest speakers:

Ahmed Zahir - Executive Editor, reporting focus on economy and politics, Haveeru.
Shafeenaz Sattar - Economist and Policy Analyst, Maldives Monetary Authority.
Adam Manik - Economist and Former Deputy Finance Minister.
Mohamed Wahyd - Private sector businessman, business consultant and economics teacher.
Ali Hashim - Private sector businessman and business consultant.

Presentations were followed by a series of interesting questions from the audience and key areas of concern raised include:

Understanding of economizing and the economy overall.
Importance of management within businesses.
Population consolidations.
Control of the economy by very few key players.
Government owned companies.
Negative growth since Tsunami in 2005.
Importance of monitoring policy.
Saving habits should be encouraged and instilled.
Tax.
Need for long term solutions.

What do you think about these issues? And how do they affect you in your daily life and work?

Health care in the Maldives - are we getting what we deserve???

2008-06-01T04:26:00.000-07:00

For a population of more than 300,000 there are just two main hospitals which is located in the capital Male', and around 5 regional hospitals spread over the country, but these regional hospitals are rarely used. It is quite common for patients to seek medical help in Male', but then IGMH with a bed capacity of 300 and ADK with a bed capacity of 50 is almost always overflowing with admissions. Then there's always a constant flow of people going abroad for further treatment, some assisted by the government. Why aren't these further treatments being established in the Maldives yet?

IGMH being the only government hospital and the biggest health care facility was presented to us by the Indian Government. And recently international funding has contributed some basic equipments to the Addu regional hospital. Do you think that hospitals have sufficient equipment and facilities to support the needs of our society? Why do you think the two main hospitals are based only in the capital? What about the rest of the country? And do you think the society has lost their trust in the current health system?

Please post your comments with answers to these questions, we want to hear about your experiences and opinions...

Is TV and Radio in the Maldives Free and Fun for all?!?

2008-05-17T12:10:00.000-07:00

What do you think about TV and radio in the Maldives? In particular, what are your views about state-run stations Voice of Maldives and TVM?

Some might claim that there has been genuine reform in the state media recently. This week a group of 7 NGOs launched a series of radio programmes called ‘Voice of Society’ on the state radio station ‘Voice of Maldives’. This is a real breakthrough for getting the voice of civil society heard with shows which will cover a range of subjects such as human rights, the role of civil society and promoting democracy. The first show was on Monday and shows will continue for the next year, aired at 8:45pm every Monday and repeated at 1:30am every Wednesday.

On the other hand, some claim access to state media and therefore access to inform a large proportion of the Maldivian population is still restricted. Especially in the context of the elections many believe NGOs, opposition political parties and outspoken individuals are not given sufficient air time in news and programmes.

What is your view? Do you think there are genuine changes in the state media?

Do you think coverage of issues related to the elections is open to all?

And what about the new radio stations, such as Dhi Fm, Faraway, Hfm and Capital? Do you enjoy their shows and do you think they are providing a fairer picture of Maldivian society?

Police in the Maldives – what’s your view?

2008-05-07T11:07:00.000-07:00

What do you think about the police force in the Maldives? There are currently around 4000 officers to police a population of 300,000 people. Is this enough? Too many?

Lack of training for officers to carry out their job professionally and efficiently is highlighted as a key area; currently police officers receive only 4 months of training before starting work. Is this sufficient to foster a reliable and supportive service to the community?

The police themselves admit there is a need for more emphasis on community policing and engagement with citizens. This will foster a police force that can ensure a secure and peaceful place to live for all Maldivians. The police pinpoint that lack of training and understanding in this area is the barrier. Do you think this is a valid justification or is there a lack of will or motivation for police officers to approach the community in a positive and caring way?

Perhaps a greater issue is that the promised reforms to the system are still incomplete? The Police Bill has still not been passed in Parliament and the current Penal Code is very difficult for the police to maintain integrity in carrying out their work. What can the police do to highlight the delays as hindering their work and can the public take a role in raising awareness?

Above all appears to be a need for greater transparency throughout the police service. What information would you like to police to give out to the public? And how do you think the police should be more transparent at every level, from Commissioner down to Officer?

So, what is your view? Please post your comments and let us know what you think about the police service in the Maldives today...

Rock Concert!!!

2008-05-01T00:23:00.000-07:00

Zero Degree Atoll, Traphic Jam, Unborn and Trio are set to play at a concert called ‘Resurrection’ on this Thursday night (1st May) at 8pm at Carnival Stage.

The theme of the concert is:

‘Young people care about the community:
we say no to gang fights,
we say no to drugs,
and just want to have fun!’

A group of active young people have organised the event and they have decided to hold a one minute silence during the show to pay respect to the two young boys who died in the recent gang fights.

The concert will give young people an opportunity to enjoy themselves at an evening focussed on great musical entertainment!

Tickets are Mrf 35 and available from Barcode, Time Zone, Dolphin, Baywatch and Dupicate. Or you can just turn up and pay when you get there!

Please come along and join the fun!

Street violence in the Maldives – what’s the broader picture?

2008-04-17T04:25:00.000-07:00

Did you know Male’ means blood bank in Divehi? This is a striking insight with consideration to the sudden rise in street violence over recent years.

However, apart from information the tragic deaths or type of injuries sustained by victims or the government response to send military out onto the streets, few seem to have considered the broader causes and issues.

Such causes, which may not be immediately apparent, include the housing crisis as lack of space in homes means young people are forced to roam the streets.

Lack of social dialogue is another possible cause. Difficulty in talking about personal issues (such as drugs or sexual relationships) among families may explain why feelings of anger, depression or loneliness often develop and these then manifest themselves in fights on the streets.

So, what do you think are the underlying causes of street violence? Do you think addressing the housing crisis in Male’ would make a difference? Is it true Maldivians rarely talk about sensitive issues? And, do you think a non-militant, non-confrontational approach with consideration to the broader picture would be the most effective to combat street violence in the Maldives?

Please post your thoughts, I look forward to seeing the dialogue develop…

Street violence - diversion tactic?

2008-04-10T04:19:00.001-07:00

There is escalating fear among the Maldivian population as street violence in the capital city appears to have gone out of control. In response the government has decided to send out onto the streets men in uniform from the National Defense Force. Some claim these gangs are politically fuelled and this is a clever diversion tactic of the Maldivian government.

Whilst people fear for their families’ safety they are distracted from the crucial debates going on in Parliament. As decisions on the crucial transitional chapter are decided upon people are understandably thinking only about the personal security of themselves and their families amid the rising number of murders, attacks and street battles.

The current climate brings into question whether the forthcoming elections will be free, fair and violence-free. Furthermore, it calls for people to return attention to the Majilis, where decisions can be made so that a safer society can be ensured in the future.

What are your thoughts on this issue? Who is responsible for the violence on the streets in the Maldives? How are people feeling about their personal security in their homes and on the streets? And, what can be done to raise awareness about the importance of the decisions that are being made in Parliament, so that people understand that these decisions will make a difference to their future lives in the Maldives?

WIN FOR NGO’s: AMENDMENTS TO CIVIL SERVICE ACT NOT ACCEPTED BY MPS

2008-04-01T04:25:00.000-07:00

The work of NGOs to activate public concern has really made a difference. The proposed amendments to the Civil Service Act failed to go through in Parliament.

This is a time for celebration as this is a real triumph for civil society and shows the power of NGO action.

Do you have any comments to congratulate those who were involved in the campaign? What do you think should be the next campaign? And, how do you think more people should get involved in such crucial issues in future?

AGAINST PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO CIVIL SERVICE ACT

2008-03-31T05:02:00.000-07:00

Many endorse that the Civil Service Act 2007 passed by the People's Majlis is a key milestone in moving forward to a 21st century liberal democracy in the Maldives. However, the recent amendments proposed by the Government on this act will mean a step backwards in the progression towards democracy.

If the amendments are passed a great number of key positions in the government will not be regarded as part of the Civil Service. Such excluded government employees would include: Vice President, Chief Justice, Speaker and Deputy Speaker of the People’s Majilis, all ministers and the attorney genera, atoll chiefs, judges, commissioner of elections and staff, assistants to ministers, ambassador’s to foreign countries and their deputies, island and atoll office staff, the Maldives Police Service, the Anti-corruption board, and more.

Overall, the amendments will mean government employees will not be granted full protection of their rights and instead, the government will maintain their power and influence.

An alliance of NGOs who are: Rights For All, Maldives Aid, the Society for Women against Drugs, Empowering Movement, Strength of Society, Maldivian Detainee Network and the Open Society Association strongly object to the amendments. Under a massive campaign we are putting pressure on MPs to reject the amendments.

A forum last night (30th March) which saw attendance of some 800 people highlighted public concern in the issue and support for the campaign. The decision will be made at the Majilis tomorrow morning (1st April); this will be a key test to see if the country will move backwards or forwards on that path towards democracy. Please show your support against the proposed amendments to the civil service act and post your thoughts and comments.

Why do young Maldivians turn to drugs?

2008-03-13T05:22:00.000-07:00

Why do so many young Maldivians start taking drugs?

Many say that young people start taking drugs at a very early age because they are so prevalent and easy to access everywhere in the Maldives.

There is also lack of awareness on what will happen if you start taking drugs so many young people get into drugs without knowing what the horrors of being an addict are. This suggests that more emphasis must be placed on awareness campaigns through schools and among the community overall.

Boredom also seems to play a huge role in why young people turn to drugs. There is a lack of opportunities for where young people can express themselves and a lack of places for where they can occupy their time. It seems then that there is a real need for more sporting facilities, cinemas, clubs, music lessons etc across the country.

Why do you think young people turn to drugs in the Maldives? How can the number tempted to experiment be reduced? And, who should be responsible for confronting the issue to get a real reduction in drug use?

Photo: 'Losing Cultures' by Ibrahim Iujaz Hafiz.

Australian Human Rights Expert, Chris Sidoti visits Maldives

2008-02-16T06:03:00.000-08:00

"My one major impression was just how much progress depends on the completion of the democratisation process through free and fair elections, constitutional reform and good lawmaking. The legal and political systems are in very rudimentary form and there are clear problems. That means that there is plenty of opportunity for progress without it being bogged down by having to deal with a highly embittered past. The question (and therefore the imminent challenge) will be whether the president is prepared to act as a real leader and preside over a process of genuine democratic and human rights reform or whether the whole process is all rhetoric without substance. Only time will tell."

Chris Sidoti's impressions following his human rights and civil society development speaker programme in the Maldives, February 2008.

Calling for implementation of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

2008-01-29T20:42:00.001-08:00

On 2nd October 2007 Maldives signed the International Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRDP). The Convention embodies institutional changes, and represents an important tool toward altering the perception of disability. It ensures that people with disabilities have equal opportunities without discrimination and with respect of the inherent dignity of every human being.

On Monday evening (28th Jan) OSA held a discussion led by the Human Rights Officer in charge of the Convention at the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mr Simon Walker. Mr Walker is in the Maldives as part of a sensitisation campaign on human rights and disability co-organised by Handicap International with the collaboration of the Resident Coordinator Office and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.

The discussion at Dharubaaruge organised for civil society was attended by a sizeable 91 people. This marked an interest in finding out about the Convention and a willingness to create change for persons with disabilities in the Maldives. Questions were varied but the overriding message appeared to be the need for Maldivian society as a whole to work for implementation of the Convention in order to make equal opportunities for persons with disabilities a reality.

What do you believe is the reality of implementation of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in the Maldives? And what can civil society here do to push for such implementation?

What is the standard of education in the Maldives?

2008-01-16T03:01:00.000-08:00

What is the standard of education in the Maldives? Many people believe that there are serious deficiencies in the education system and therefore Maldivian students are not being provided with an acceptable standard of education.

A primary concern is the lack of teachers; in particular well trained teachers whose native language is English. A second pressing issue found in Male’ is the lack of space for classrooms which explains the morning and afternoon shifts of classes. Third is lack of text books, the high prices that are charged and poor quality of the books that are available. The content of lessons is also questionable; in particular some people believe lessons in world geography and history are severely lacking.

What are the solutions? Many believe current hard working and proficient teachers should be provided with better working conditions, salary, living conditions and career opportunities (most teachers are paid Mrf 2000 per month for accommodation allowance). Some are also calling for recruitment of more teachers from Europe and the US. A further appeal is for the government to place priority on seeking more space which can be used for classrooms.

Another solution is for the government to give support to private schools which are supplementing schooling provided by the State. The Language Learning Centre (LLC) in Male’ is one example that parents are using in order to improve the language skills of their children. However, Teacher, Mr Szymon Cichoszewski, from the LLC highlights that no such support is provided.

What are your thoughts about education in the Maldives, and what are the solutions for change?

Band of the Hand -- It's Hell Time Man!

2007-12-24T05:18:00.000-08:00

Anyone seen the movie, Band of the Hand? It is about a group of young people trying to escape a life of crime and drugs and having to fight a corrupt establishment that encourages both crime and drugs. The only way the group of young people can survive is by being together- like the fingers of the hand.

Bob Dylan wrote the theme song for the movie and performed it with Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers. Oops! It is not a very recent movie-- it dates from 1986.

But a few recent incidents have reminded me of the song and the movie--especially the stories in Minivan News about how politicians are using and victimising young people to do their evil deeds.

I have recently discussed with the Human Rights Commissioner and some Members of Parliament on how we can help these young people break this cycle of violence, drugs and prison, and get rehabilitated to society. I also discussed these issues with some of the visting members of the EU delegation in a private capacity.

I am told that there is a contract out on me-- to muzzle me, paid for by politicians. The youths are not sure whether they should listen to me or to their paymasters. I am interested in how I can help these youngsters find a life of hope on the right side of law, and leave the gangster scene bankrolled by corrupt drug dealers and evil politicians.

Many of them have told me that there would be bloodshed in the year ahead and are concerned about the lawlessness and anarchy into which the country is sliding. Survival will take all us to band together like the fingers of the hand.

Here's the song:

Band of the hand
Band of the hand
Band of the hand
Band of the hand

Band of the hand
Band of the hand
Band of the hand
Band of the hand

Down these streets the fools rule
There's no freedom or self respect,
A knife's point or a trip to the joint
Is about all you can expect.

They kill people here who stand up for their rights,
The system's just too damned corrupt
It's always the same, the name of the game
Is who do you know higher up.

Band of the hand
Band of the hand
Band of the hand
Band of the hand

The blacks and the whites,
The idiotic, the exotic,
Wealth is a filthy rag
So erotic so unpatriotic
So wrapped up in the American flag.

Witchcraft scum exploiting the dumb,
Turning children into punks and slaves
Whose heroes and healers are rich drug dealers
Who should be put in their graves.

Band of the hand
Band of the hand
Band of the hand
Band of the hand

Listen to me Mr. Pussyman
This might be your last night in a bed so soft
We're not pimps on the make, politicians on the take,
You can't pay us off.

We're gonna blow up your home of Voodoo
And watch it burn without any regret
We got the power we're the new government,
You just don't know it yet.

Band of the hand
Band of the hand
Band of the hand
Band of the hand

For all of my brothers from Vietnam
And my uncles from World War II,
I'd like to say that it's countdown time now
And we're gonna do what the law should do.

And for you pretty baby,
I know you've seen it all.
I know your story is too painful to share.
One day though you'll be talking in your sleep
And when you do, I wanna be there.

Band of the hand
Band of the hand
Band of the hand
Band of the hand

Band of the hand
Band of the hand
Band of the hand
Band of the hand

Anniversary of Peshawari Invasion: Velaanaage as the Tallest Building

2007-12-23T01:01:00.001-08:00

"The loser now will be later to win...
The old order is rapidly fading...
The first one now will later be last,
For the times they are a-changin"-- Bob Dylan

23 December is the anniversary of the invasion of the Maldives by Peshawari Coolies led by Mr Mohamed Didi of Velaanaage. The attempt was defeated and it remains a mystery what happened to the mercenaries. The year was 1910.

Although the attempt failed, the Velaanage dynasty went on to become one of the most influential and controversial in the history of the country. The dynasty's grand patriach is Malinge Hassan Didi who is reputed, as are all of his bloodline, for their courage, made a name for himself during the troubled 1880s in the wake of the atrophy of the longest serving monarch (43 years!). Except for those who have only themselves to blame, those of the Velaanage dynasty are reputed for their indomitable spirit, honesty, probity, and candidness and for their selfless devotion to public service which is probably a hallmark of all dynasties accustomed to positions of leadership.

In 1910, Mohamed Didi and his son were tortured and banished to the island of Fuah Mulah but returned with full force to Male to dominate the country's political scene, especially after the demise of the First Republic.

Ibrahim Nasir, who is the grandson of Mohamed Didi became Prime Minister in 1959 and established the Second Republic in 1968. Although he established the all-powerful executive, he was a great believer in western education, modern infrastructure, free enterprise and egalitarian society. He also ensured that the British could not play hanky-panky with the Maldives and secured full independence in 1965. Nevertheless, Nasir's heavy-handed dealings with the insurrections in the South and repressive measures against political opponents tarnish his overall impressive presidency.

Apart from Nasir, the Velaanage dynasty also spawned the first ever elected Vice President, Ibrahim Mohamed Didi who headed the provisional government after the overthrow of Mohamed Amin Didi, the first ever President of the Maldives and the founder of modern Maldives. Mr Ahmed Zaki, the last Prime Minister also hailed from the Velanaage dynasty.

Today, scions of that clan are everywhere. Defence Minister Shafeeu, Education Minister Zahiya, Trade Minister Jaleel, Foreign Minister Shahid, Justice Minister Muizz, Deputy Foreign Minister Aminath Didi, High Commissioner Shaheed Zaki, High Commissioner-designate Ali Hussain Didi, Home Minister Kamaluddin, Vice President of MDP Ibrahim Hussain Zaki, Shadow Defence Minister Amin Faisal, business tycoons Ahmed Mahir Didi and Mohamed Mahir Didi, the intellectual Dr Farahnaz Faisal, all hail from Velanaage.

One of the great differences between Gayoom and Nasir is that Nasir made public servants accountable to their deeds. Perhaps he was able to do it because he did not pack his cabinet or offices with relatives, despite the dominance of the clan. It was Nasir who unravelled the in-bred clan rule and introduced a meritocracy.

Well may Qasim Ibrahim take a commercial loan from SBI to build Velaanage as the tallest building in the Maldives.

For the Record: Shaheed's Resignation from Cabinet

2007-12-23T01:01:00.000-08:00

Please find reproduced below the Exclusive Interview that Dr Shaheed gave to Reuters just prior to handing his resignation to President Gayoom on 21 August 2007. This interview is being reproduced here for the record. This was a written statement given by Dr Shaheed. Subsequently, Dr Shaheed had given interviews to Minivan News, Haveeru, Haama Daily, and Dhi FM radio elaborating the reasons why he quit. He has also agreed to do an interview with Dhivehi Observer covering the same material.

TOP STORIES
Maldives Foreign Min quits over reform pace

By Reuters
Tuesday August 21, 03:50 PM
By Simon Gardner

COLOMBO (Reuters) - Maldives Foreign Minister Ahmed Shaheed said he submitted his resignation on Tuesday, the third top cabinet member to quit this month, accusing conservative elements in the government of stalling on democratising reforms.

Shaheed called Reuters from the capital Male just before handing his resignation letter to President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom.

"There is a conservative guard within the parliament and cabinet which is resisting the proposals of reformists like me," Shaheed told Reuters. "So I think the answer is to work outside the system and find a middle ground and provide an alternative."

It was not immediately clear how the president had reacted.

Shaheed was a key architect of the reform agenda Gayoom pledged in late 2004 to revamp the Maldives' autocratic power structure in the face of harsh criticism of the government's rights record.

He will now join fellow reformists -- the former justice minister and attorney general who quit earlier this month and call themselves 'New Maldives' -- to forge an alternative centre ground ahead of the first multi-party presidential elections next year.

Unlike his two colleagues, Shaheed did not accuse Gayoom himself of delaying reforms. But he did say he thought it was time Asia's longest-serving ruler passed on the baton after 29 years in power.

Political parties were legalised in 2005, but promised reforms -- including a new constitution providing for separation of powers, judicial independence and the right of free assembly among others -- have yet to materialise in the chain of 1,200 mostly uninhabited islands 800 km off the toe of India.

"I want to applaud Gayoom for risks he has taken by taking forward the sweeping reform agenda and I remain a friend and fan of the reform process," Shaheed added.

"President Gayoom has a chance to emulate Nelson Mandela to pass the torch on to a new generation, and I hope he does it."

Gayoom told Reuters on Sunday he planned to run for re-election next year for a seventh and final term to see his reforms through. He aims to complete the reform process within 2-3 years.

With Shaheed's exit, Gayoom's directly appointed 13-strong cabinet is now down to nine members.

His resignation comes just days after the Maldives voted to adopt a U.S.-style presidency in a referendum seen as an endorsement of Gayoom's rule.

It also comes on the eve of a no-confidence vote scheduled in parliament brought against Shaheed by political rivals after he declared it was not effectively protecting the rights of ordinary citizens in a land of 300,000 mostly Sunni Muslims best known as a luxury honeymoon destination.

Email to friend | Most emailed | Discuss

Discussion on Democracy in the 21st Century

2007-12-22T01:12:00.000-08:00

Pictures from the meeting

Audio from the meeting*

* Thanks to Capital Radio 95.6 for the recording.

A Thought for Human Rights Day 2007.

2007-12-10T12:32:00.000-08:00

"Equal Participation"
Mohamed Juman Shareef
Winner of Open Society Association Human Rights Day, Photo and Poster Competition

Situated in the Indian Ocean, this scattered pearls of land on which we live, Maldives, was described as "one of the wonders of the world" by the famous Moroccan traveller Ibn Battuta. Back then, the perceived lifestyle was quite simple and delicate. However, the conservative identity of our nation had survived over the generations and is still treasured in our hands. Our life lies on a carpet of natural beauty which is simply mesmerizing and heart grasping.

I feel it is an injustice not to highlight the stimulating thoughts and efforts of our forefathers, when the beauty of our nation is mentioned. The real beauty and victory of our nation was delivered through their sacrifices and compromises. With limited resources, but with enormous courage they had faced the reality and fought for unity. The national liberty that we relish today is their handiwork. I share my words of respect for their countless efforts and never ending memory.

Intruders affiliated with compatriots, continuously tried to abort the peace and prosperity of our nation. However, they had also continuously failed. We have succeeded so far. Having faced such circumstances, I call ourselves survivors. Obviously survival was what brought us from the birth. But our history had survived much more, and we are the descendants trusted with the responsibility of making the coming generations survive with the Maldivian identity.

Excuse me for being collectively inquisitive over a matter that could be quite controversial. But I wonder how many of us especially youth, really realize the national responsibility we hold in ourselves? Lodging our personal challenges aside, how many of us really think with a broader and a national interest? How many of us really care?

Today, our environment is threatened with deliberate violence. Sad to say, the youth today express their courage in more aggressive ways rather than being reasonable. It is becoming a very intense and a severe concern in our society. Stabbing and murder are fast becoming a frightful reality. And the hardest fact is that today, it is not any other people, but our own people gambling away our liberty and unity in an easy game.

I believe it is unfair to accuse the majority for a minority's actions. But every head has an impact on the whole nation. A little impurity in your bowl can make it whole foul. If our community split into sub-groups and engage in destroying one another, it is time for us to freeze for a moment and let our mind comprehend the scene.

A blood feud will do us no good. It will eventually kill us all in evil. It's simply a fools game to be persistent in taking giant steps to sabotage one's own home. It cannot lead or serve our nation.

The biggest challenge posed for us today is the moment we live in. There is a saying, "The action without conscience is a wild beast". It's this beast that could threaten our environment. Never let the wild beast have its way or rule. You have got a brain where you could stir the presence of mind. Real triumph lies where we think beyond the moment. Real victory lies where we look beyond the present.

Let us all welcome the real values of life and precede with wit, wisdom and insight. Let us be more passionate in sharing, caring and bearing our own species. Humanitarian values must be appreciated with justice. The belief that one man is superior and another man is inferior must be completely abolished. Equality among us must be an implemented reality. Glimmer of smiles and shine of hope must be cultivated in this land. If we all work together as one, in promoting the right perceptions and virtues, I believe that, UTOPIA is not an impossible dream. THERE, rights for all is guaranteed.

Kulshoom Ali,
10th December 2007 - International Human Rights Day.
Male' Maldives.

‘Decent Work for Disabled People’

2007-12-06T01:39:00.000-08:00

Mohamed Juman Shareef

'Disabled people should have equal rights to enjoy the benefits of cultural advancement'.

On 3rd December it was International Day for Disabled People. The theme for 2008 is ‘Decent Work for Disabled People’. This week volunteers from Handicap International, the Ministry for Higher Education, Employment and Social Security, Jamaluddin School, and the Open Society Association (OSA) have been conducting company visits around Male'. The visits allowed dissemination of information and the opportunity to discuss the issue of disabled people in the workplace in the Maldives. The companies came from a variety of different fields including the media (Haveeru), fishing (Island Enterprises), tourism (Villa Hotels), delivery services (DHL), UN, construction, wholesale, law firms and public affairs.

The visits aimed to introduce to company directors and human resource managers to the situation for people with disabilities in the Maldives. It allowed a valuable exchange of ideas and opinions on the attitudes and prejudices held among the Maldivian community. The issue of accessibility was raised in terms of those with disabilities as employees as well as people with disabilities as customers. Companies were encouraged to consider disabled persons in their recruitment and employment and to provide opportunities for on the job training. Finally, the company managers were asked to make commitments to furthering the cause for people with disabilities by providing internships and sponsoring in the future.

The visits were extremely valuable; many of the people in high positions were positive and willing to make changes to accommodate disabled people. However, the exercise highlighted that the Maldives is at a very early stage in its development towards providing a service for disabled people to get work. The discussions also showed that overall attitudes of society towards disabled people are still under-developed and there is a strong need for greater awareness about the rights of disabled people to live and work equally in the community.

OSA Extends Deadline for Human Rights Day Photo and Poster Competition until 30th November

2007-11-22T02:37:00.000-08:00

OSA is looking for striking photos and posters that reflect your thoughts about the cultural community in the Maldives. The topic is broad but that gives you more freedom. It might be a strong statement expressing your frustrations, showing how people are not able to participate in the community.

Alternatively, it could be a positive image about how you actively take up your right to participate in the cultural community, such as a picture of people playing drums in traditional dress, a group of friends skating or the bustling scene of the fish market.

OSA encourages you to be creative and express yourself. You only need a title for the entry and it must be submitted with your name, date of birth (entrants must be between 16 and 24 years) and contact details (phone and e-mail).

More good news is that from today we are extending the deadline until 30th November so you will have a little more time to compile your entry. Digital images should be sent to jesskateg@gmail.com and prints or posters to P.O. Box 3002.

GOOD LUCK!

OSA Human Rights Day Poster and Photo Competition

2007-11-18T03:49:00.000-08:00

OSA invites you to take part in our Human Rights Day Photo and Poster Competition.

Theme: Your cultural life of the community in the Maldives

The theme of the OSA competition is 'the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community' (Article 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948). The idea is for you to think about your culture in the Maldives and how you enjoy this within your community. You might take photo of a family member in traditional Maldivian dress, draw a picture of your friends skating or paint an image of the bustling community at the fish market...

The Prize: A visit to see the United Nations human rights capital, Geneva, Switzerland and human rights related books and CDs

Top prize of this OSA competition is a trip to the UN capital for human rights Geneva, Switzerland! The winner will fly to Geneva where they will get the opportunity to have an educational tour of all of the spectacular UN sights, including the Palais des Nations, the International Centre for the Red Cross, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, and more. A chaperone to accompany the winner will also be invited to join the trip.

Runners up will be invited to attend the OSA Human Rights Day celebration on the 10th December and will be awarded with human rights themed books and CDs.

Entry deadline and specifications: Open to all 16 - 24 year olds in the Maldives, deadline 25th November 2007.

The competition is open to all 16-24 year olds in the Maldives. Entries should be submitted before the deadline of 25th November 2007.

Photos can be taken with a digital camera or phone. Developed photo prints should be standard size and posters A4 size and any materials can be used on the design.

All entries should be submitted with an application form which you can download from here. Digital images can be e-mailed to jesskateg@gmail.com and you can send prints and posters to Open Society Association, P.O. Box 3004.

If you have any questions or require further information please e-mail OSA Lead Coordinator Jessica Kate Griffiths jesskateg@gmail.com or call 7671487.

Should we encourage an English Literary Association?

2007-11-14T22:18:00.000-08:00

This afternoon, I attended a gathering of poetry lovers at Salsa Royale organized by the well-known Dhivehi poet, Jadulla Jameel and his associates in the civil society. I arrived a little bit late because it took a lot longer than I realized to fully charge the battery of my video camera. The organizers and the participants had opted not to invite the media or the press formally, so I undertook to make a record of the event.

Jadulla is widely known in the Maldives. He is a poet in his own right and a fearless defender of free expression. He also hails from a very well known family, both for their literary achievements and political clout.

When I arrived, Jadulla was introducing the event. I was pleased to see that the event was well attended, especially by a lot of young people. Jessica from the Open Society Association was already there. I also noticed that Hon. Mujuthaba, former Minister of Trade and Chairperson of the Human Rights Commission, was also there.

Many of the younger faces were new to me. Some were people I had met before. But all seemed very eager and looked very happy to be there. Utopian Culture had a good presence.
Shihab read a poem, I think written by Jadulla. A topical poem that voiced some of the angst that fills the streets of Male’.

Jadulla himself read a poem, written by a young girl, a Thalassaemia patient. She had the wisdom of the sages and the flair of a poet. I had heard the poem before, and had found that a very moving poem. Jadulla’s reading of it carried the emotive undertones of the lines well.

Jadulla was followed by Mujuthaba, who read one of his own poems, a poem that he said he had written on 8 April 2006. It was a very topical poem, with sharp angles on the current political ferment, a real soul –searching poem by one of the key players in the current reform process.

Next, a young girl, I think she said her name was Kulshum, came up and read a poem that she had written. It spoke directly to the primary concerns of her generation, but also had broader interest. It was a poignant expression of the issues that exercise the conscience and the minds of all civic-minded people in the country. The elegance of her expression was matched by the fluency of her delivery, and conveyed the incisiveness of the poet’s mind. She should keep on writing—her meter, rhythm, diction and imagery all fused into mesmerizing poetry, written with uncommon flair.

Edith Piaf also made her entry to the event, via a disc recording. Not only was a song sung by her, but the song was turned into skit, with the words being read by Shazra, who had studied in France, and acted by Andhu. I don’t understand a word of French, but I love the singing of Edith Piaf and Charles Aznavour. I got to Aznavour not through French sources, but from Bob Dylan, who sang an Aznavour song at a concert of Dylan’s that I attended years ago at the Madison Square Garden. It was Aznavour who sang that one should “get up and leave without a word when love is no longer being served!”

I was pleased to find out that the gathering included a few students who were studying English literature. They clearly had enough passion for their subject to spend the afternoon at the poetry recital. I had a chance to talk to them and were very impressed by their interest in literature and their mature approach to the works that they were reading—Othello, Emma, Pride and Prejudice, Street Car Named Desire, etc. I was dismayed to learn that only 5 students were enrolled in the literature class! Twenty-seven years ago, I ploughed through Othello, Emma and so on, again with only 4 colleagues! A country that ignores history and literature cannot have a bright future! No wonder our young minds are falling prey to narrow-minded ideas!

I had gone to the event without any poems. But Nishwan, a young man taking an year off from his studies in London, came up there and recited a poem he said he had found that day, “Crook with the Crown”. He said he had looked through his own anthology of poetry and found that his poetry was all about Cupid, and so he had to get another poem with political overtones. He was kind enough not toe expose the author of that poem.

I felt obliged to own up to having written that, in August 2001. I had no idea what the date was because most of my poetry are written between 11:00 pm and 1:00 am or on an airplane with no sense of time, or in a hospital bed when I lose count of time. But Jessica had to hand a couple of my poems which I had passed on to her for comment earlier that day. I had left over 60 pages of poetry in the President’s Office which I forget to remove before I bolted out the door and haven’t been able to recover them yet.

I thought I would read a poem—Present Tense at the Museum, which I had written in August 2001. I must have been in a hospital or something, to have had time to write so many poems in August 2001!

I don’t know what the audience made of my poem. But it was about the political dystopia that I saw around me, in 2001. It was some ways a dated poem, because I referred to an “unchanging caste”. But I was expressing my disgust over the complacency with which the establishment was gloating about the achievements of the past and I was warning them that “the future will rebel at the past”! A museum displayed those who had enjoyed all sorts of perks in the past: “rows and rows of silent dignity, pointing to yesterday’s opportunity”.

At the break, with music from a couple guys from the band 1984, some of the brightest young people I met in a long time, Ibu, Affan and Nashia, took issue with my time in government. We had an engaging dialogue on the role and impact of New Maldives in government, but Jadulla reminded us that poetry should take precedence over politics. I thought the discussion had more to do with philosophy than politics, but either way, poetry had to rule.

It was a wrench to walk away from the trio – and I look forward to a chance to talk to them again. These are the people whose voices must be heard by the powers that be. I hope that the country doesn’t lose people like them, and indeed discovers more of them.

Which brings me to my original point: why not set up an English Literary Club? To be fair, the idea belongs to Mujuthaba, but it is one that I heartily endorse. Life imitates art as art imitates life. Reading a good book is like living a lifetime. It can open-up minds and widen horizons.

Discussions among literati can be very enlightening, and certainly contribute to a vibrant culture.

Prospects for Democratic Transition: Panel Discussion hosted by US Ambassador

2007-11-07T04:15:00.001-08:00

The US-Maldives Friendship week had many items. The spriteliest moment came with the Rhythm Nation, when US dancers and musicians joined in the week-long celebrations for a high energy hip hop dance show. The grand finale was fusion music of Bodu Beru and Hip Hop. Perhaps there wasn’t a dull moment in the week. The Open Society is very pleased to have been associated with at least some of the items of the week.

The Panel Discussion on “Democratic Reform in the Maldives” clearly stole the limelight, in terms of media comment and controversy. The Open Society is thankful for the US Embassy for organizing the event because we believe that the realm of ideas and free expression in this country needs to be expanded. This kind of exercise does not require a foreign host, but when local actors are polarized and allergic to each other, a friend of democracy and of the Maldives, can play a very useful role.

In any case, democrats always welcome a chance to talk to each other.

On behalf of OSA, Shaheed attended, at the invitation of the US Ambassador. Government ministers were invited to participate in the Panel Discussion but somehow none of them showed up. Perhaps either the topic or the other panelists, which included the US Ambassador, were not worth ministerial time. Shaheed was told the day before by the US Embassy that Minister Nasheed would be representing the DRP/Government on the Panel.

Quite a large audience did turn up. Again, there did not seem to be any DRP members. There were a few officials from the Foreign Ministry, the Information Ministry, Elections Office and a good attendance by the free media and NGO community. Most of the audience comprised MDP, whose chairperson did have the courtesy to grace the event. The Human Rights Commissioner and some of his associates also found democracy worth talking about.

The first speaker was the US Ambassador who was both the host and the moderator of the event. He spoke about the importance the US attached to the democratic reform agenda and on the important benchmarks for democratization. He spoke about the importance of access to rule of law and access to information and resources. He stressed the critical role of free and fair elections and the need for the government to invite election monitors early.

The government/DRP was represented by Mr. Anil, the newly appointed Commissioner for Legal Reform. He said his brief was to discuss democracy from a technical perspective rather than from a political perspective, and gave an update on the work of the Special Majlis and what outcomes one might expect in terms of the new constitution. Anil was very upbeat about the new constitution and presented it as a first-rate constitution.

Shaheed spoke next and was followed by Mariya Didi, winner of US State Department’s Woman of Courage Award last year. Mariya spoke about the lack of space for dissent and the over-bearing nature of government, including the concentration of power in the executive. She also lamented the gulf between democratic values and principles and societal attitudes towards women and the opposition.

Shaheed began by saying that he had been earlier saying that he had been optimistic about prospects for democratic reform but implied that he may now have become more guarded in his optimism about the prospects for successful democratic transition. In actual fact, he listed what he thought were the conditions that favoured a democratic transition and the conditions that were militating against it. He also identified which model of democratic transition best resembled the Maldives situation. He said even the best constitution in the world could not, in itself, guarantee democracy, but required the support of independent institutions and democratic mindsets and values.

Shaheed referred to Professor Huntington’s seminal study on democratic transitions based on the Third Wave countries and said that that wave was continuing into the 21st century.

Shaheed said Huntington identified four key variables: a) failure of government and increasing doubt over the legitimacy of government; b) rising levels of education and wealth and increasing means of demanding civil rights; c) opposition of religious leaders towards the status quo; d) external pressure on human rights; e) demonstration effects.

In nearly all these areas, Shaheed found that developments favoured democratic transition although he questioned if the appetite of the US to promote democracy had not become dampened with the way the Iraqi venture had turned. (To which the US Ambassador assured the audience that the appetite had not waned because of Iraq). Shaheed referred to the Warsaw Declaration of 2000 by 107 states recognizing that democratic states had a collective responsibility to help others to become democratic. He also noted that in 2005, the UN had adopted as an international norm, the notion of Responsibility to Protect ( ie in the event of human rights abuses).

While Shaheed found that , in terms of these five factors, the conditions seemed to favour democratic transition in the Maldives, he noted that Huntington pointed out a sixth necessary element: that the elites must believe that democracy is something that is beneficial for the people. Here Shaheed queried whether in fact the faith of the elites in democracy was contingent or unreserved. He said that not enough was being done to promote public awareness on democracy and that, being a rather closed society, there was very little scope for alternative viewpoints. He lamented the fact that the governing elites did not believe that there could be healthy difference of views and referred to pro-government websites which promoted hatred and contempt towards dissenters and the political opposition.

Shaheed described a closed society as one in which there was no world of ideas different from the world of existing facts. Thus, it is because the Maldives is a closed society that people wondered if there was anyone other than the incumbent who was fit for office. He also said that the reflexive action of the elites to explain every discordant development as “no threat to the existing state of affairs” is another feature of a closed society, and pointed to the over-reaction in the state radio and tv to the announcement by Dr . Saeed to contest the presidency next year. The announcement was measured by existing facts and was ruled out as being of no consequence to next year’s election. Shaheed also noted that the Maldives was one of only four or five countries, along with China, Cuba, Myanmar and North Korea to argue at the Vienna Conference on Human Rights in 1993 that human rights were culturally-relative rather than universal.

However, as Shaheed said, elite faith in democracy would be a necessity only where democratic transition is to be led by government. He noted that there were several routes to democracy and that they were, again to use Huntington’s typology, a) transformation, where the transition is government-led, as was the case with India and Brazil; b) replacement, where the opposition elements succeeded in replacing the authoritarian order with democracy, as in former East Germany and Romania; c) transplacement, where the government and the opposition both moved the country towards democracy as happened in Poland and former Czechoslovakia; and d) foreign intervention, as in the case of Grenada and Panama.

Shaheed ruled out intervention as an option. He suggested that the other three models still were feasible, but if certain conditions were fulfilled. If the transformation model is to succeed, he said that President Gayoom should complete the reform agenda during the current term, including establishing the independent institutions that Hassan, Jameel and Shaheed wrote about in a letter to the President earlier this month, and not contest elections in 2008.

If the President were to contest elections, then a united front of pro-democracy forces would be able to achieve democratic transition by replacement. But if they were not united, they would fail, and if the pro-democracy forces suffered an electoral defeat next year, it would be impossible to attain a peaceful democratic transition by replacement in the foreseeable future.

Shaheed also said that the most stable democratic transitions occurred when there was transplacement ie where the governing elites and the opposition forces collaborated in attaining democratic transition. In all cases, a country is deemed to have been set firmly as a democracy when two peaceful transfers of power have occurred.

Shaheed said that what would definitely bring democracy would be if President Gayoom set his mind on joining the Club of Madrid rather than seek a further term. The Club was established in the year 2000 to bring together former Heads of States who had facilitated democratic transitions in their countries.

In the discussion that followed, Shaheed also called for a government of national unity as an interim arrangement to prepare a free and fair election.

Pathways to Democracy: Seven Ways to Speed Up the Reform Agenda

2007-11-02T06:35:00.000-07:00

The following is a document submitted to the President yesterday, by Dr. Hassan Saeed, Dr. Ahmed Shaheed and Mohamed Jameel.

Summary

• Without implementing the reforms listed below, the elections to be held in 2008 cannot be free, fair or inclusive or enable the people of Maldives to choose a leader for the future. If the promise of a liberal democratic Maldives is not to be a fairy tale, then the following pathways must be pursued now to attain democracy
1) Strengthen the independence of the judiciary:
a. Divest the Chief Justice of non-judicial functions
b. Follow emerging practice and appoint a Chief Justice with the advice and consent of the parliament
c. Increase transparency and public confidence in the highest court of appeal by holding public hearings as pledged by the President on 11 November 2005
2) Undertake urgent reform of the Criminal Justice System by revising current administrative guidelines to incorporate standards which are contained in proposed reform legislation and are consistent with human rights obligations
3) Reconstitute the Police Integrity Commission to make it an effective watchdog
4) Entrench media freedom by establishing the right to information
5) Strengthen anti-corruption measures immediately:
a) Free prosecution decisions from executive approval
b) Honour commitments under the UN anti-corruption convention
c) Require that public office-bearers declare their assets and interests
6) Implement the Civil Service Act without further delay and dismantle the patronage system as required under the Act
7) Strengthen the independence of the Elections Commissioner and invite international monitors now

____________

How to deliver democracy before it is too late for Maldives

Three years since the government promised liberal democracy, Maldives continues to resemble a police state more than a democracy. Whilst international pressure has produced some reforms, the people of Maldives continue to live in fear and without the most fundamental safeguards against arbitrary government. Frustration over the slow pace of reforms has seen the resignation of key reformist ministers from the Cabinet recently. Corruption has become rampant as national assets are being auctioned off to raise revenue for a bloated re-election budget. Lawlessness and religious extremism are growing unchecked as law enforcement resources target opposition political activities rather than crime. The Government must accelerate the implementation of the reform agenda if Maldives is to see long-term stability, peace and prosperity, instead of insinuating that democracy and human rights protection beget religious extremism and instability. Without implementing the reforms listed below, the elections to be held in 2008 cannot be free, fair or inclusive or enable the people of Maldives to choose a leader for the future who can save the country from creeping extremism and rampant corruption and strengthen democracy.

In June 2004, President Gayoom promised to make Maldives a liberal democracy, and promised to establish an independent judiciary, implement a two-term limitation on the office of the presidency, remove his control over the parliament and the elections commissioner, strengthen government accountability and human rights protection, and allow multiparty elections. These measures were outlined as a 31-point proposal to revise the Constitution, a task to be completed by the end of 2005. Having missed that deadline without any meaningful progress in writing a new Constitution, in March 2006, in response to strident criticism that the government was not serious about implementing the proposed reforms, the President announced a detailed Roadmap which provided time-frames for the implementation of the reform programme.
The Reform Agenda, as detailed in the Roadmap, included the 31-point proposals announced by the President in June 2004, the 5-Year Criminal Justice Action Plan published in 2004 by the Attorney-General, specific commitments to embrace international norms and practices in human rights protection and anti-corruption measures advocated by the Foreign Office, and actions designed to promote civil society and civic education. In addition to revising the Constitution, the Roadmap also identified primary legislation and executive actions to ensure that legal, administrative and political frameworks were in place to ensure that the elections in 2008 would be free, fair and democratic.
18 months on, the Reform Agenda has failed to deliver crucial reforms that could lay the groundwork for the litmus test of making the elections free, fair and inclusive. Public confidence in the sincerity of the government’s commitment to the Reform Agenda has been dealt a severe blow by the President’s announcement that he would run for a 7th consecutive term as president in the elections due in 2008, despite having voluntarily offered a two-term limitation in his 31-point proposal. His claim that he requires more time to complete the Reform Agenda is at best an admission of the failure of the Roadmap and at worst an outright rejection of the Roadmap. The government and the ruling party are either heedless or unaware of the potential for instability and chaos that reneging on the promises for reform could create for Maldives. Failure to resuscitate the Reform Agenda and honour the pledges made by the President in 2004, can only increase distrust, polarization and instability in the community and lead to a showdown between the forces of reform and those of reaction.
The results of the public referendum held on 18 August 2007, to choose between a presidential or Westminster-style government, are being misconstrued as an endorsement of the present government. Far from it, the people voted for change—for the separation of powers and term limitation on the presidency, demands which have been consistently made for a number of years. Needless to say, public frustration is running high, especially as the government has shown no sign of abiding by the Roadmap.
The Failure of the Roadmap
The Roadmap pledged the implementation of reforms on three tracks. These were reforms to be effected by the People’s Special Majlis (Constitutional Assembly), the People’s Majlis (Parliament), and the Executive.
• The Constitution was to be completed by 31 May 2007, but the date lapsed without a single chapter being completed. Even where the Assembly has voted for clear departures from current practices, the government has either ignored them or acted contrary to those measures. While the government is technically not bound to implement these decisions until they are passed in the form of a Constitution, the government can demonstrate good faith by acting in accordance with the spirit of the decisions reached by the Assembly.

• While the Roadmap proposed 22 separate pieces of legislation, only three have been passed. These are namely the Audit Bill, the Civil Service Bill and the Bill Amending the Human Rights Act. Even in these cases, the Audit Act has not been implemented.

• The government pledged in the Roadmap to carry out a number of executive actions to advance reform, but little has been done. These promises include accession to international human rights instruments, implementation of civic education programmes, proclamation of a regulatory framework on public assembly, formation of a Police Integrity Commission, establishment of a supreme court and an ombudsman’s office, and holding local elections. While human rights instruments have been acceded to, they are not being implemented; the regulation on public assembly falls short of the international norm; and the Police Integrity Commission is a lapdog rather than a watchdog of the Home Minister. But nothing is more worrying than the failure to strengthen the independence of the judiciary.

Is there a commitment to reform?
The sense of frustration of pro-democracy elements is reinforced by their perception that the government has deliberately sought to delay and derail the Reform Agenda. They point out to a number of actions that demonstrate lack of good faith.
• It was the government who pulled out of the Westminster House process in October 2006 by refusing to nominate its contact group to sit down with MDP to speed up the Reform Agenda.

• It was the DRP who pulled out of the talks with MDP in February 2007 when a plan had been agreed with MDP to form a three member Panel, including the constitutional expert deputed by the UN, to draw up a mutually agreeable text of the Constitution.

• The Police Integrity Commission was handpicked by the Police Commissioner and was deliberately made a toothless body, which was still-born.

• The regulation on public assembly, which does not meet the international norm on the right to peaceful assembly, was issued without the concurrence of the Attorney-General and therefore unconstitutionally intruded on the rights of citizens.

• The decision by the Cabinet in 2005 to make the Judiciary independent was not implemented by the President. There is no judicial independence and the government has virtually ignored the recommendations of UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Lawyers and Judges.

• The pledge made by the government to provide, by April 2007, a legal framework to ensure right to information has not been honoured.

• Although the government has acceded to the UN Convention against Corruption, it has not honoured a pledge to table a bill to strengthen anti-corruption measures.

• The announcement by the President that he would contest elections in 2008 reneges his pledge on two-term limitation for the presidency. President Gayoom’s candidature makes it doubly imperative that the Reform Agenda must be speeded up, rather than frozen, pending the completion of the work on the new Constitution. Democracy is not a document, but a set of ideas and values and the government must demonstrate its commitment to democratic ideals.

Reviving the Reform Agenda: Pathways to Democracy
With the intention of reviving the reform agenda and ensuring that the multiparty democracy is made a reality in 2008, we propose that the President undertake the actions outlined below in 7 key areas.
1) Strengthen the independence of the judiciary

The Roadmap pledged the creation of a Supreme Court by August 2007 and to institute other measures to enhance the independence of the judiciary. The actions of the government over the past 18 months have ignored these promises. It is imperative that the people of the country have recourse to a judge who is not answerable to the executive.

a) Divest the Chief Justice of non-judicial functions
The current Chief Justice, in addition to being a presidential appointee, also holds a post in the executive branch, namely, President of the Supreme Council on Islamic Affairs. This dual role must come to an end. The Attorney General had, in January 2007, publicly called for the divestment of the non-judicial functions of the current Chief Justice.
b) Follow emerging practice and appoint a Chief Justice with the advice and consent of the parliament
In the referendum of 18 August 2007, the people have resoundingly endorsed the principle of separation of powers. The Constitutional Assembly has already resolved that under the new constitution the Chief Justice would be hired and fired by the President on the advice of the Parliament. Also Parliament has recently set up precedents for the appointment and dismissal of head of independent institutions with the advice and consent of the parliament—namely, the Auditor General (Audit Act 2007), members of the Civil Service Commission (Civil Service Act 2007), members of the Human Rights Commission (Human Rights Act 2006), and Governor and Deputy Governor of Maldives Monetary Authority (Maldives Monetary Authority (Amendment) Act 2007). Therefore, without waiting for any specific law to come into force, the President should demonstrate good faith and enhance the independence of the judiciary by appointing a Chief Justice with the advice and consent of the parliament. It is an anomaly that the judiciary not enjoy the independence enjoyed by lesser institutions.
c) Increase transparency and public confidence in the highest court of appeal by holding public hearings as pledged by the President on 11 November 2005
Currently the proceedings of the highest judicial body in the country, i.e. the Council which advises the President on judicial matters, take place behind closed-doors. Lawyers are not allowed to appear and argue before the Council. Its judgments are based on written submissions only. Further its judgments are not accessible to litigants, lawyers or the public. On 11 November 2005 President Gayoom, announced that proceedings of the Council would be made public in order to enhance transparency of the judiciary. However, to date no action has been taken despite repeated demands by the Attorney General.

2) Undertake urgent reform of the Criminal Justice System by revising current administrative guidelines to incorporate standards which are contained in proposed reform legislation and are consistent with human rights obligations
As part of the government’s effort to overhaul country’s criminal justice system, the government has, among others, submitted the following Bills to the Parliament.
• Criminal Procedure Code (Presented to the Parliament)
• National Security Service Bill (Presented to the Parliament)
• Police Bill (Presented to the Parliament)
• Prison and Parole Bill. (The government continues to hold back this Bill despite repeated requests by the Attorney General to present it to parliament).
Without waiting for the Parliament to pass these Bills, the government could issue Presidential Decrees incorporating these Bills. Even at the present, these areas are governed by administrative regulations and guidelines. Therefore, there is no reason why the government cannot issue Presidential Decrees to revise those guidelines to reflect the practices proposed in the new legislation and honour commitments made by the government under international human rights treaties.

3) Reconstitute the Police Integrity Commission to make it an effective watchdog

The Government failed to establish an independent Police Integrity Commission, in accordance with the Roadmap. According to the Roadmap the Commission was to be established on 31 August 2006. As part of the Westminster House negotiations, the government and MDP agreed that members of the Commission must be agreeable to both sides. This was not honoured by the Government. Members of the Commission (yet to be established fully) were handpicked by the Commissioner of Police Mr. Adam Zahir himself which was a mockery of the Roadmap’s letter and spirit as the very objective of the Commission was to check abuse of power by the Police Commissioner himself.

4) Entrench media freedom by establishing the right to information
In the past three years the country has experienced unprecedented level of freedom of expression and press. The reasons for this new found freedom are: refusal of the Attorney General to prosecute under the current penal code and other related laws; liberal policies adopted by the Ministry of Information, Arts and Culture; and international pressure exerted through the Foreign Ministry. However, there has been no change made to any law or regulation which had previously suppressed media freedom. Therefore, the new found media freedom could easily be compromised with a simple change in prosecution policies or changes within the Ministry of Information. To strengthen this fundamental right further, the government has submitted the followings Bills to the Parliament.
• Media Freedom Bill
• Freedom of Information Bill
• Registration of Newspapers and Magazines Bill
• Broadcasting Bill
• Cable Television Service Provision Bill
Judging from the current slow pace of the Parliament it might take several months, if not years, to pass these laws. Therefore, without waiting for the Parliament, the government could promulgate these Bills in the form of Presidential Decrees. In fact, in January 2007, the government promised the proclamation of a decree establishing the right to information when it introduced anti-defamation provisions. Such a decree has been awaiting Presidential authorization since April.

5) Strengthen anti-corruption measures immediately

a) Free prosecution decisions from executive approval

Current practice of the Anti-corruption Board (ACB) is to submit its investigative findings to the President’s office. Only after approval from the President’s Office can cases be referred to the Attorney General’s Office for prosecution. The government should discontinue this practice immediately.

b) Honour commitments made under the UN anti-corruption convention

The Constitutional Assembly has resolved that the ACB would be a fully autonomous body under the new Constitution. The government has also acceded to the UN anti-corruption convention. Therefore, the government should take steps to ensure the ACB is a fully autonomous body. This would include revision of the procedure for the appointment of the Board members, and provision of job security, for instance.

c) Require that public office-bearers declare their assets and interests

Corruption seems to be most rampant at higher levels of government. Therefore, the government should require the President, ministers, deputy ministers, and other political office bearers to declare their assets and interests.

6) Implement the Civil Service Act without further delay and dismantle the patronage system as required under the Act

The government continues to give unjustified promotion to civil servants who are supporters, activists of the governing DRP while denying even justified promotions to those who are sympathetic to the Opposition or those who failed to support the DRP. The Government should immediately discontinue this practice. Also the government should stop dragging civil servants into politics. Further the government should expedite the establishment of Civil Service Commission and enforce the Civil Service Law in its entirety well before the next elections.

7) Strengthen the independence of the Elections Commissioner and invite international monitors now

In addition to making the Elections Commissioner independent, the government must also implement the recommendations made by the Commonwealth Election Observer team of 2005 and of the Assessment Team of 2007. In order to ensure that there will be credible international observers to the next election, the government must invite the Electoral Affairs Division of the UN Department of Political Affairs to send their assessment mission to Maldives.

______________

Power to the People

2007-10-24T12:04:00.000-07:00

Greetings from the Open Society Association!
We would like to extend our best wishes to all of you and to say that we look forward very much to benefit from the insights that we'll get from a free and frank discussion of various issues with interested bloggers.

The three of us love freedom, peace, justice and equality. We believe in a society that is inclusive, tolerant and compassionate.

We believe that the Maldivian society is at an important crossroads. For the first time and perhaps for the last time in our lifetime we have a unique opportunity to usher in a liberal democracy peacefully. And more than that - it is also vital that we ensure that every member of society, men and women, can contribute to and benefit, in an equitable manner, from the social, economic and political advancement that our nation can achieve.

We believe that our society must be democratic and inclusive, that our economy must provide opportunities for all, especially the youth, and that the political power must effectively reside with the people.

Power to the people. That is what we seek and that is what we hope to achieve.
We believe that Islam and democracy are compatible and that our Muslim nation can become a beacon of hope to all peoples of the Muslim world.

We belive that with the grace of the Almighty Allah, a better future is possible for every Maldivian. We believe that the greatest resource that we have are not sun, surf and sand, but the great people of our beautiful country.That is why we say power to the people! And together, all of us, let's make it happen.

Power to the people is not only about democracy, but also economic opportunities for all, and a social and cultural life that enriches us all.

Thank you,
Open Society Association of Maldives