Cabinet Debacle and 116

Much is being said about changes which were brought to Article 116 of the constitution at the final amendment stage. Allegations are rampant, and of course, it is all aimed at me. I often marvel at the capacity of the spin doctors. Sometimes I think that Hill and Knowlton could learn a thing or two from the Maldivian political arena!

There is a bit of a history to this whole issue, and in order to understand the current cries of “treason”, it may be appropriate to briefly review the circumstances surrounding the issue. Article 116 deals with the procedure relating to the formation of a Ministry.

Until the early to mid 90’s, the formation of any Ministry required the passing of an Act by parliament. That is to say that the President did not have the power to create a Ministry (and hence couldn’t appoint people to the cabinet) just at his whim and fancy. Now, this is standard practice in all democracies. However with the Ilyas-Qayyoom fiasco of 1993 [initially I wrote 2003, but a reader pointed out the error. Thanks], the relevant law was abolished, and power was given to the President to create any Ministry that he wanted, whenever he wanted. We have seen the result of this action : the proliferation of Ministries all over the place. Ministries are created just overnight, and the cabinet reshuffled every other day. Ministries are not created to serve a targeted function, but rather defined according to who has to be appointed to the cabinet now, to please cronies and to juggle the balancing act within the cabinet. This has ultimately led to the creation of over 20 Ministries to manage a population of 300,000 people, and the appointment of persons to over 100 “cabinet and other senior level” posts, culminating in a monthly wage bill of over 6 million rufiyaa for the tax-payer.

When the Amended Constitution was being drafted, the consultant, Professor Schmeiser, advised strongly that in any democracy, be it Presidential or Parliamentary system of government, the ultimate power to create cabinet posts lies with the Parliament. So, the initial draft presented to the Majlis had a provision to this effect. However DRP proposed an amendment to move this power from the Majlis to the President, but this amendment was voted down by the Majlis. There was another amendment which was proposed by Thaa member, Riyaz Rasheed, the wording of which was very ambiguous (in the context of the constitution), because on the one hand it said the President had the power to create Ministries, but he should submit the decision to parliament. Now, in parliamentary terms, when something is “submitted” to parliament, it comes into the decision making mechanism of the parliament, and the parliament has an inherent right to accept, modify or reject the submission ( Refer to the second article in the Majlis Chapter of the revised constitution). This creates a legal quandary which would be difficult even for the Supreme Court to decide one way or the other. So, in the review process, to avoid a potential constitutional crisis after ratification, with the advise of Professor Schmeiser, the drafting committee unanimously agreed to propose to the Majlis to clearly define this power as lying with the Parliament.

When the revisions were proposed to the Majlis, there was some change or revision to virtually every Article in the constitution. So, for ease of reference, the changes had been classified into two main categories : changes with mainly editorial issues and changes which involve a substantial issue. Those with substantial issues were marked in yellow coloured highlights. In the preparation of the document Article 116 had been missed in the highlighting process. A simple and innocent oversight, by those who did the secretarial work. I am also mindful of the extreme pressures on them and the long hours they were working to meet deadlines.

What has not been spoken about are two important facts in the process. One is, on the page which outlined the legend, where mention is made of the “yellow highlights”, is also very clearly written, in red and blue ink, that in ALL the articles, including those with and without yellow highlights, ANY deletion of any text are presented in BLUE text with a line crossing out the text with a double line, and any additions to text are presented in RED text, with a single underline. Also, in the column right next to the column containing the modified text was the original text as passed by the majlis, allowing for easy and ready comparison.

So this “yellow highlight” was NOT the real marker of changes, but the blue and red text. All members of the majlis were given ample time to review the document before a vote was called. It is my belief, therefore, that all members of majlis knew exactly what they were voting for, and there is no room for anyone to claim that something had been “slipped in” to the constitution without their knowledge.

The fact of the matter is, the DRP were not diligent enough. They did not do their homework properly, and they are looking to blame me for the consequences of their action (or non-action?). Not really fair, is it not?

Furthermore, in the meeting of the Drafting Committee in which this change was brought, Cabinet Representative Nasheed and President’s Representative Zahir were present. So was Addu member Shareef and other DRP heavy weights. They did not object in committee.

The real dilemma for Qayyoom and the DRP, of course, is what are they going to do about the jobs of all their “boys and girls” once the constitution is ratified? Already the Cabinet is in disarray. More will be leaving the Cabinet soon. Qayyoom’s avenues for rewarding the “boys and girls who are loyal” are being closed fast.

My critics will remember that I have always maintained that Qayyoom can only be brought down by outsmarting him, and it can only be done in stages. This requires careful planning, and strategizing on the political and legal front. That is what I have tried to do. I have focused on removing his powers bit by bit, and doing it systematically. Every piece of legislation that we have passed has taken something away from him. The Amended Constitution will be the crown jewel in the process. That is why I have given every single minute of my time to the Constitution. I believe that Qayyoom’s armour has been split right down the middle now and he is at his most vulnerable. What we are now witnessing are attempts to rekindle the embers. Attempts to re-armour the regime. However, I believe that those are futile attempts.

MUSING ON INDEPENDENCE

Today is our 43rd Independence Day. I am sitting at home, enjoying a rare day with my family. Just now, the children are playing with their cousins as my little nephew is celebrating his birthday today. As I watch the children play in complete innocence as only children can, I sense a certain melancholy descend on me. I keep asking myself, when will their innocence give way to pragmatics? What is in store for them tomorrow? As they engage in their play, carefree and happy, they are oblivious to events which surround them; events which will determine their future, their lives, their future happiness (or desolation?).

Just this afternoon, my son was watching the address by the President on the occasion of Independence, with me. My son asked me, “Dad, why is the Independence Day so special?” I tried best as I could to explain to him that Independence for a nation was very important because that was the way to ensure our freedom and our security. In my attempt to emphasize the importance of Independence, I exemplified by saying that if another nation was ruling us, they could hurt us if we didn’t obey their every order…and then I realized I had made a mistake. For he then asked me a very innocent question, or was it a statement? He said, “Oh! So Zimbabwe is not independent then? I saw the other night on the news people in uniforms beating up people in Zimbabwe.” I was stumped. I did not have the heart to contradict him. I did not have the words to explain to him that one could be enslaved by one’s own fellow country men, too. Had I started to, his next question could very well have been, “Dad, why is it then that I saw that pregnant lady and many others being beaten by the police, the other day, on our doorstep? (He witnessed the events which took place in front of our house on 13th August 2005). Why is the President saying we are Independent when we really are not?”

Only a child could have the innocence to see things in black or white with no shades of grey in between. I just thought, let him enjoy his innocence at least one more day. Tomorrow someone may come and steal a portion of it from him.

After this exchange with my son, I couldn’t help but muse to myself on the ludicrousness of it all. Here we are, engaged in academic debate on the finer points of independence, freedom and liberty and it took a nine year old just a few seconds to say it all. For, the essence of what my son said is simply this: Does it really matter who rules us if we do not have the freedom to enjoy our liberties? Can we take any special pride in being ruled by people of our nationality when they commit atrocities against us that even imperialists would not commit?

Perhaps Independence is a relative notion. Maybe, it is a notion that is even on the way to becoming obsolete. When is the Independence day of Britain? Or China? Or Germany? Or the Netherlands?

Nations which gained “independence” from colonial rule still celebrate independence to remind themselves of what it was like to be under colonial rule. But as my son pointed out, I wonder whether the average Zimbabwean today would prefer colonial rule under Britain or Independence under Mugabe?

But of course neither of the above is a real choice for Zimbabweans. The real solution would be a Zimbabwe free from British colonial rule and also free from authoritarian Mugabe rule. It is not only Zimbabwe which we see in this situation. I wonder what the average Sudanese thinks about Independence these days?

We seek, and take pride in Independence because it allows us to affirm ourselves as a nation which is free to do what it wants; that we have the opportunity to propagate our culture and values. However, the very essence of this Independence is rendered meaningless if in our Independent nation the citizens are subjugated and deprived of civil liberties. If they are not given the opportunity of being considered equals in responsibility, contribution and benefits of nationhood.

Sometimes Independence has a down side, too. It may not be all rosy to be an independent nation. Along with Independence comes also the concept of sovereignty. Sovereignty can also be used by oppressors within the nation to protect themselves from the criticisms from other nations in situations where rule of law is forgotten and the will of a few people are imposed on the majority.

Common phenomena in these kinds of situations are calls for Nationalism by the oppressors and denouncing foreign intervention in the name of sovereignty. Of course, in this situations, to be nationalistic is to be non critical of the dominant view, sacrificing individual freedoms and liberties in the national interest, to foster “national harmony” at any cost, and in short, to bow to the will of the oppressors.

When one starts hearing repeated calls for nationalistic action by the oppressors, and every other person being labeled as a traitor and charged with treason, then one can take a certain kind of comfort in knowing that the oppressors are now resorting to their last tactic : create mass hysteria in that if change occurs, the colonialists and the imperialists will steal our nation from us. Little do they know, that by that stage the masses are convinced that anything else will be better than what they have.

In a rapidly shrinking globe, where commerce and technology have become the invisible infiltrators across national boundaries, one muses whether the post second world war era notions of nationalism and Independence hold any water now. I am inclined to believe that nationalism and Independence can only be sustained with slightly different interpretations of these terms. The new nationalism and independence must be the empowerment of people to become global citizens and yet have the ability to preserve their culture and values. Every nation is on the way to becoming a multicultural society. The most important definition of Independence in the new world may very well be to do with the independence of men and women, free to aspire to their own ways of defining a “good” life.

HYPOCRISY REDEFINED

Since I came out in the open in 2004, to defy the all pervasive injustice in our country, and to fight to bring down totalitarian rule and a system of governing which had put our people into subjugation and total submission, I have had the opportunity to work with and to interact with a number of my fellow country men and women: in positions of cooperation and adversarial. I had formed my own opinions about their intentions, their capacity to act and their levels of understanding about the turmoil that our country was going through. A detrimental, but necessary turmoil I believe.

Any systems theorist will immediately tell us that for a system which has gathered extraordinary mass in its course to be turned a 180 degrees will have a huge amount of inertia that needs to be overcome, and a counter force of greater magnitude will have to be applied to achieve this turn around. The result of this action will undoubtedly be a period of chaos within the system, but out of this chaos will emerge order, and hopefully, and I believe certainly, the emerging order will represent a better organization of elements within the system, an organization which will allow for more harmonious interaction and will lead to longer term stability with a greater degree of egalitarianism built in. I sincerely believe that we have taken great strides in achieving this.

Among the many people with whom I have interacted on this journey is a remarkable young man, a man with passion and dedication, who sometimes display a sense of purpose bordering on single mindedness. I have observed him in action, displaying flashes of brilliance in finding solutions and quick to react to emerging situations. I had high hopes for him, that given time to mature and mellow out a bit (there is no better teacher than life itself), to develop the skills of good judgment in being more discerning about people in particular, and he would one day prove to be a great leader for this country. I still am hopeful, for people only learn through their experiences and the positive and negative consequences of their actions, and an aberration can be contained and rectified. I had built a great rapport with him, because in him I could see bits of myself reflected (the better bits, I mean!).

He is Mohamed Nasheed, the current Minister of Legal Reform, Information and Arts. A young man on whom has been thrust the responsibility of rectifying the resulting consequences of the deliberate mismanagement by a despot who has ruled this country for 30 long years.

In my interactions with him, I could see the painful internal struggle of trying to reconcile what he believed was right with what he was being asked to do in public (not that he told me in as many words, but here I am making a subjective judgment). He still had not reached that level of Maslow’s need hierarchy to make the decisions to do what he had to do. Misplaced loyalties were forcing him to abandon a proper analysis of real-politik which would have shown him exactly what he had to do.

Ultimately, he has found it necessary to publicly declare that his friend, Ibrahim Ismail, was a hypocrite, based on a completely misguided analysis of events.

Fact is, the President did not make any announcement regarding the date of ratification on the 21^st of July; he still has not. He will not confirm any date even to his own cabinet, until he has played out his game.

Fact is, The President has always let Nasheed believe that he sincerely agreed with Nasheed’s suggestions and advise. But at the last moment, directives will come out, not necessarily from the President to him directly, but often through others, which would force Nasheed to retract his honourable agreements with others. The agreements we arrived at regarding the Transitional Arrangements Chapter, behind closed doors, unanimously agreed by Nasheed’s delegation and the MDP delegation, and me sitting in the Chair, had to be thrown out. I never called Nasheed a hypocrite on any such occasion, because I could understand this process and the players involved. There are many more that I can recount, but I shall not.

Fact is, a number of decisions made by the President to destroy the Amended Constitution, implemented by those who are so willing to do his bidding, were turned around by us through carefully thought out strategies on the Majlis floor, complemented with direct action by the people. The “Spectacle at the Palace” was an action by the people to prevent the President from “owning” the Elections Commission, The Supreme Court and the Prosecutor General. Checkmate should be recognized for what it is.

As Nasheed says, I know the inside and outside of this process very well. I believe I understand the inside much better than him, who is actually on the inside. As for the outside, it brought much humour to me and a smile to my tired face to read his claim that he could gather 7 times more people against us on the streets. That will be the day. But I shan’t dispute him. God knows we all need our fantasies to keep us going. I shouldn’t deny him that.

It saddens me, when Nasheed says, “They would expect us to be all civil and polite and endearing, when we meet again for work”. I wish Nasheed would think back to the number of times I have been “civil, polite and endearing with people at work” when the very same people had tortured me (literally), conspired to lock me up for 25 years, proofread documents in the middle of the night to submit to parliament to open up dead trials against me, gone back on their word numerous times, blatantly lie and try to deceive in broad daylight, accept bills in parliament and reject it in its third reading, wake me up in the morning hours to draft something for the constitution, make a deal, get me to propose it and then vote against it; the list could go on. Such is the nature of this process. Poltics is a pathetic thing.

Nasheed called me a hypocrite because I was able to judge the intentions of his own colleagues better than he could. I believe that one day he will be able to understand that what I did was something I had to do. It is as simple as that.

Nasheed called me a hypocrite. But I will sit with him tomorrow, if I had to, and be civil, polite and endearing, if I believed that doing so had even the remotest chance of bringing a positive outcome for our nation and its people. One should realize that this nation and the aspirations of its people are much larger, much, much, larger than both our egos put together. And it will forever be in the realms of the knowledge of Allah, why He, in His eternal wisdom, chose both Nasheed and I to play some part in this huge transformation of our nation.

The memory span in politics is necessarily short. More so in a closely knit society such as ours. The process of political maturity will allow us to be civil, polite and endearing towards our worst contenders, and the political arena does not allow room for personal feelings of political actors. At the conclusion of any political action, the nation either gains or loses. Infinitesimally small at times, and in large bounds at times. Historians in the future will judge our actions and argue whether ‘The Spectacle at the Palace’ led to a gain or a loss from a national perspective.

I sincerely hope that one day soon, my friend Nasheed will realise where his loyalty should be, and be able to see that President Qayyoom is keen to display to the people of this nation that everyone, including my friend, Nasheed is just as selfish as he is, and that the end game of this chess match involves the total destruction of integrity of anyone that the public may consider as a sensible person; and that in the end, no one is any better than Ilyas, Yaameen, Hameed, Fath-hulla and Zahir Hussain. Sadly, he seems to be succeeding.

Let us recognize President Qayyoom and his 30 year rule for who he is and what he has done. He has proven himself to being an extremely selfish person, who thinks only of himself. A flame in the dark night which attracts moths for their ultimate destruction. The early part of his 30 year rule did bring prosperity to the nation, but the latter part has brought this nation to its knees. His inability to change with the times and bend to the will of the people, his great alienation to the plight of the people, the growing disparities among the people, his reluctance to recognize that his time was over, these are the factors which have forced the people to take radical action. It is beyond me, how anyone with unselfish objectives could work so hard to defend this corrupt and unjust regime, and go out of his or her way to pretend that whatever change that is occurring could be attributed to the President’s or his government’s sincere intention to democratize this country.