Islam has always been a factor shaping Maldivian politics.

Photo by Yassin Hameed. Courtesy Portrait Gallery, Maldives

Of all the changes taking place in the Maldives, the nation’s system of government is one of the most controversial. Many Maldivians are demanding greater democratic rights, and the government is faced with the challenge of making a smooth transition into a modern democratic state.

Attorney General Mohamed Munavvar, who helped draft the country’s new constitution, adopted in 1997, says the Maldives has seen remarkable economic growth during the last two decades and continues to expand its economic and development activities. However, he cautions, “the legal and judicial sectors have not been able to keep pace with the rapid economic development and we have come to a point where further economic development and growth are not possible without rapid and substantial legal and judicial reform.”

Munavvar says that the root cause of what many call the Maldives’ uneasy relationship with democracy is the lack of a national precedent. “We never had a foreign presence here: we were never a colony. When the British left in ‘65 they did not leave us with a legal system, a judiciary system or an administrative system and we find that we were very much left to fend for ourselves.”

The Maldivian constitution offers no distribution of powers. The main legislative body is the Majlis, or Parliament, composed of 50 members, nine of whom are private citizens, and 41 of whom are public officials such as cabinet members, government officials and managing directors of state-owned companies. The President has power over the appointment of a sixth of its members (eight MP’s), which provides him with a strong power base for re-election, which requires the nomination of a third of all members.

Shaaheen Hameed, son of the Speaker and nephew to the President, is also a barrister at the private law firm Premier Chambers and Vice Chairman of the Law Commission. He also helped draft the country’s new constitution, but does not approve of it. He says that it is, if anything, more restrictive than the last. “It is much more detailed, but it hasn’t really changed much,” he explains. “It has not given us what we were looking forward to, which is greater transparency, greater democracy and more due process and rule of law.”

However parliamentary democracy may be progressing, the President’s power is still broad. Besides being Commander in Chief of the armed forces, the Minister of Defense and National Security, the Minister of Finance and Treasury, and the Governor of the Maldivian Monetary Authority, the President also controls the judiciary, with the power to appoint judges and to overturn any of the High Court’s rulings. He also has the power to grant pardons and amnesties. Members of his family and long-term friends are in prominent positions of power: the Speaker of the Parliament and Minister of Atolls Administration is his brother, as is the Minister of Trade, while a brother-in-law is Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation.

W. Lewis Amselem, Deputy Chief of Mission at the US Embassy in Sri Lanka, which is also accredited to the Maldives, describes the system as odd: “it is almost tribal. Everyone is related and very little is written down. They are trying now to codify their laws and regulations but so much of this is informal. It is essentially an authoritarian system where all power flows from the President.”

Campaigning for change
The establishment of a multi-party political system is an intensely discussed topic in the Maldives, especially in the tea shops where men gather to talk and discuss. Those who are willing to express dissent to outsiders, however, tend to do so off the record for fear of reprisals.

Although the constitution guarantees Maldivians’ right to form alternative political parties, a recent effort to do so by 42 people, led by a group of businessmen and intellectuals, was stalled by the President and Parliament together. Their application to register a political party, all sides agree, was made formally and constitutionally.

Speaking of the incident, the President claims that it was endangering national unity. “The multi-party system,” he warns, “may lead to the division of the country.” He emphasizes that Parliament voted on the issue at his request, and denied it by 43 votes to five. “People decided it was not the right time yet to have political parties,” he says.

Attorney General Munavvar, also a Member of Parliament, claims that a multi-party system would necessitate a constitutional amendment. “The Electoral Commission must be independent, and so must the Elections Commissioner - in such a system one must ensure that they can only be appointed with the consent of Parliament.” He says change is possible with the present system: “If we have the present constitution and political parties, we are finished: a party is never going to agree to change the constitution. Right now, it can happen.”

While not forbidden by law, the President officially discourages political parties on the grounds that they are inappropriate to the homogeneous nature of society. Minister of Transport Ilyas Ibrahim, speaking in his capacity as a Member of Parliament, a post he has held since 1975, agrees. He says that the competitive advantage of a multi-party democracy in the Maldives cannot be immediately realized because of the characteristics of the nation: its size, and its people’s inexperience in political debate. “We are not mature enough to have this kind of discussion,” he says.

According to the US Country Report on Human Rights Practices, one signatory to the political party petition was MP Abdullah Shakir. He was later arrested, but released soon thereafter. Some observers believe that his arrest was connected to his political stand, but the government maintains that he was arrested in connection with a civil matter. During the year, many Majlis members were active and outspoken critics of the government and called for closer parliamentary examination of government policy.

Gayoom does allow that the time may be right for a different system in the future, though he does not specify when. “Maybe it is possible later to have parties, but I do not know. The majority does not want that, but certain people do think that a Western style of democracy may be good. I am not personally against political parties: if Parliament would have decided to have them I would have said yes.”

Speaker of Parliament Abdulla Hameed agrees: “if there is a need for the introduction of political organizations in the future, when circumstances may favor it, I do not see any objection.”

Electoral hiccups
There are indications that democratic development is happening on its own: according to the US report, for the past several years the Majlis has held a question period during which members may ask government ministers about public policy. Since its institution, debate on the floor has become increasingly sharp and open, and the elections to the People's Majlis, last held in 1999, were generally judged free and fair by international observers.

Despite this, sources say that in every election parliamentary candidates are subjected to intimidation, one claiming that in every election three or four candidates are detained. This source, who asked to remain anonymous, says that because candidates have to stand as individuals rather than party members it is easier for the government to pinpoint and arrest people they see as trouble-makers.

According to Amnesty International, three parliamentary candidates were arrested in the run-up to elections in November 1999. One of them, Umar Jamal, explains, “I was charged with attempting to discredit the government.” A rival candidate closely linked to the government alleged that Jamal had said that “although this is called a democracy, it is a kingdom and there is no freedom.” Jamal says he was detained in solitary confinement for three months, and since then has been tried three times in both the lower and the higher courts, “once in the Higher Court without my being present,” he says.

Jamal is being held in an extended system of parole-like restrictions in the absence of a conviction: “Three years later they still hold my passport ... and I have to submit to monthly checks.” Jamal is still waiting for a resolution of his case.

Amnesty International says that since November’s election about 100 people have been detained for criticizing the government. But President Gayoom insists that the law is not enforced with undue measures. “We do not have any political prisoners, and there is freedom of political expression as far as the constitution provides. Reports that say we have taken candidates to prison are all wrong.”

Working for legal rights
On the legal front, the Constitution dictates that an accused person be presumed innocent until proven guilty, and have the right to defend himself “in accordance with Shari'a.” During a trial, the accused also may call witnesses, and be assisted by a lawyer.

Shaaheen Hameed says that although legal representation is a constitutional right, in his experience the courts have not allowed defendants due process in cases that were evidently political, pointing to the example of Mohamed Nasheed, a former MP who was charged with theft. “I tried to represent him, not because of his theories and what he believes in, but because I believe in justice.” But Hameed was not allowed to. “I wanted to be able to represent, to defend, to let the defense side be heard. But Nasheed had to defend himself and he was convicted.”

He also criticizes the government’s provision of education to lawyers. “The government has not been very keen to train lawyers, to send people abroad to study law…it is not too confident about having too many lawyers.” In the absence of many qualified lawyers, there is less criticism. “When people stand up, they [the government] don’t like it…I think that is really why the government has not been too keen to develop the legal profession.”

Attorney General Munavvar claims that the government is taking measures to meet the challenge. It has recently launched a law faculty within the College of Higher Education, and the Law Commission of the Maldives, which earlier was functioning within the Attorney’s General’s Office, has been established as a separate institution, charged with the drafting of all new legislation.

The United States has always shown a keen interest in Maldivian legal reform. Recently the two governments agreed to a project entitled “Rule of Law in the Maldives”, concerning assistance to the law school and the Law Commission in the procurement of reference material, the training of legislative draftsmen and improving the qualifications of judges.

Deputy Chief of Mission Amselem points out that the US has been trying to help improve the situation. “We do have some limited programs in the Maldives, and we are about to undertake one to promote the rule of law, helping to codify legislation.” He says that a more difficult aspect of the problem is the system’s prioritizing of the Islamic Shari'a law over civil law: “We have to look at Shari'a, and how you play with that and at the same time introduce Western concepts: that is the balancing act.”

Shaaheen Hameed adds that the restrictions of the system have caused less political involvement on the part of ordinary people: “As long you don't get involved in any political matter or try to establish your rights too much, you can live very happily here. People have kept away from any political involvement because they want to continue their business.”

Cultivating democracy
The system in the Maldives could most accurately be described as an autocracy. Many there describe power as relying not on election, but on selection. Those wishing to seek a parliamentary post nominate themselves to the Electoral Commission, after which Parliament selects candidates from the list for referendum. Some Maldivians complain that the high number of Members of Parliament working as civil servants hinders both true debate and, in the wider perspective, parliamentary democracy.

President Gayoom claims that he has no way of ensuring that MP’s vote for the Government’s policies, since they are not required to so by any law or party. As he sees it, the lack of a multi-party system in fact leaves MP’s free to vote their conscience: “Here everybody is independent,” he says.

But Shaaheen Hameed disagrees about the freedom of voting in Parliament. “I have seen Parliament at work from the inside,” he says. “I would not like to go in there as a member the way it runs. It does not work as a Parliament. It legislates, but it legislates what the government wants it to legislate on.”

Amselem calls the Maldives a “limited democracy, in the sense that the Majlis can talk around issues, they debate some policies, but not anything fundamental, so it is a semi-authoritarian regime.” He adds that “the Maldives has no democratic tradition at all,” and says that the latest constitution “increases the power of government over its citizens in the name of protecting their rights.”

Gayoom counters that democracy cannot spring up fully formed, or overnight. “It is for the people to be made more aware of democratic practice and that they should participate,” he says. “It is not only the government, the people should be involved in democracy.” Majlis Speaker Abdulla Hameed agrees, saying that in the Parliamentary agenda for next year emphasis will be given to strengthening relations between Parliament members and their constituencies, to enable greater public participation in politics, and to bring the system closer to the people.

One area in which Shaaheen Hameed agrees with President Gayoom and his father, however, is that change cannot come overnight. “I try to change the legal system by contributing to it,” he explains, “by constantly applying to go to court.” He says that freedom of speech is an important issue in the Maldives. “We keep quiet. Maldivians are too peaceful; we do not want to cause any uprising. That is why many people talk off the record. Most of the people who have political opinions are government employees, but they do not talk too much because they don’t want to lose their jobs.”

Freedom of speech
According to Mohamed Bushry, editor of the English weekly magazine the Monday Times, Maldivians who disagree with the Government have an easier time than they used to. “The fear has receded in terms of talking to friends in tea shops: people can now talk, even be critical of the President or the system.” But, he says, that freedom has not translated into the media. “Radio and TV stations are government-owned, and the three newspapers are linked to government officials, people who may have some conflict of interest.”

Bushry says that the media have been nervous about using any freedom they have been offered. “It is like a wall, you have to keep pushing it and then slowly it will move. Until then the authorities will be in their comfort zone.” He adds that although the constitution and regulations theoretically provide complete freedom of expression, “somehow, for some reason, this does not translate into practice. Unfortunately, we were not colonized, so we don’t have a judicial system to protect us if we do express our thoughts.”

Jamal insists that freedom of speech does not exist in the Maldives. He cites the recent case of Naushad Waheed, an artist connected to the business elite who has reportedly been sentenced to 15 years in jail for attempting to join Amnesty International. Jamal claims that Waheed wrote to Amnesty detailing abuses by the Maldivian government, and that his arrest was followed by those of several high-profile businesspeople.

He also refers to another prominent case in which four people have been detained for their alleged involvement in Sandhaanu, an Internet bulletin circulated by email and reportedly containing articles critical of the government.

Bushry maintains that dissent is as important for the government as it is for the people. “I am not satisfied at all with the status quo. I would like there to be more freedom of expression, for the country, the people, the system to open up to all kinds of ideas, not to be rigid and try to censor. Every idea you hear may not be right, but you should listen to it at least.”

He says he is wary of publishing politically sensitive material in his magazine. “If somebody wanted to write a pro-political party article we would be reluctant, our judgment would tell us it would not be wise. We practice self-censorship…for the continuity of our business.”

Freedom of religion
A question for debate, as the Maldives enters international politics, is that of fundamentalist Islam, and whether it may pose a threat to the nation’s development. “They feel very vulnerable to radical Islam,” says Amselem. “What happens is that students get lured away by scholarships and offers from Pakistan, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and other places…and are being radicalized there.”

Maldivian law prohibits public statements that are contrary to Islam, threaten the public order, or are libelous. According to the US Country Report, in the past the government has arbitrarily detained and expelled foreigners for proselytizing, and detained citizens who converted to other religions.

Bushry says, however, that whatever the shortcomings of the regime may be, it has always tried to prevent religious fundamentalism. “The Maldives is not a fundamentalist society,” he says, but he also warns that there is a small fundamentalist movement that could become a force and that should be kept at bay.

“There are a lot of ideas floating around from different areas, people who want to establish a political party, and a certain amount of religious fundamentalism as well,” he says. Although the level of freedom the country has already experienced means that the majority of Maldivians are not in danger of becoming fundamentalists, he believes that a change in the regime and any resulting political instability could give extremists a dangerous foothold.

President Gayoom says that fundamentalism does not pose a threat to Maldivian politics. He claims that Islam works as a social unifier, and is proud of legislation that has been passed to protect it. He does admit, however, that there are less peaceful schools of Islam than the one practiced in the Maldives, and warns that dissidents may use them divisively if not prevented from doing so by the government. To that end, Gayoom has repeatedly stated that no other religion (than Sunni Islam, the official faith of the Maldives) should be allowed in the country. According to the Constitution, the President, the members of the People's Majlis, and cabinet members must be Muslims.

Overall, the President is content with the level of democracy the Maldives practices today. He and other prominent officials of his government are generally of the opinion that there is no need for further constitutional change in the immediate future. General Attorney Munavvar, however, says that change may be inevitable considering young people’s increasing exposure to Western ideas and ideals. “We are a very young country;” he says, “40 percent of the population is under 14 years old. I think we are on a voyage of major social and political change because of changing demographics and increasing awareness.”

According to Munavvar, in an age of widespread education, political change may turn out to be a tool for peace. “There will be people's demands, and they must be met. If not, then there is going to be social conflict in the country.” The government may not be ready for fully democratic processes, but if Munavvar is right, it may have to end up embracing change with open arms.