I hope that the readers of my blog will forgive me for the long silence. Many have actually called me, asking whether I have stopped writing. For those who read regularly, I must tell you that the past week and a half have been a bit of a crisis for me on the personal and family front. Now that things have settled a bit by the Grace of Allah, here we are.
This Post is dedicated to those who can see through con artists for who they are, and are not deluded by their efforts.
confidence game
–noun
any swindle in which the swindler, after gaining the confidence of the victim, robs the victim by cheating at a gambling game, appropriating funds entrusted for investment, or the like.
Also called, British, confidence trick.
Origin: 1855–60, Americanism
Confidence games, or tricks as they are more popularly known, are as old as human civilization, I suppose. My limited experience in the political and power play arenas have certainly exposed me to many of these.
I did a bit of research into the practice of confidence games, and found that for con artists to succeed in their attempts, the fundamentally crucial thing is to gain the confidence and trust of the intended victims. That is, the victims must be coaxed into a frame of mind whereby they completely trust the con artist, and actually believe that the artist is acting in the best interest of the victims, and that the artist has totally altruistic motives and have nothing to gain personally.
In politics, the con artists have to do this on a mass scale. To achieve this, the most commonly used tools are “national interest”, feigned outrage at actions of opponents. Since the adoption of the new constitution, “legal voids” have become versatile tools for con artists.
It amuses me, sometimes, to just watch the antics. During the passing of the Transitional Chapter of the Constitution, I was a lone voice in the Special Majlis when I repeatedly claimed that the ridiculous dates being proposed for elections would not be achievable, and that we should allow more time for the elections. At the time, I was ridiculed by many and accused of working towards my own personal gain. Later on, when legislation was passed regarding Presidential Elections, the entire election was rushed with the argument that there would be a “legal void” if President was not elected by 10 October. The Liberal Party went to the High Court to get the relevant article in the legislation stricken down. The High Court rejected our Party's claim. Later, when the election went “over the date” and was scheduled for 28 October, Husnu Suood and a group of lawyers went to the High Court to have the election called off. This time the High Court ruled it was OK to go past the “deadline” and there would be no void.
In matters of elections, we see MDP, DRP and PA coming together, but they pretend they are adversaries. Leading figures in DRP such as Aneesa and Nasheed have emerged out of the woodworks again, and are claiming national disaster if Parliamentary elections are not held by 15 February. From the MDP, President Nasheed is questioning the validity of the Parliament now, and Mariya Didi is screaming for blood over the issue. Nazim and Yaameen from PA are in the thick of it with MDP and DRP.
For a short time again, MDRPA alliance will be formed, just as it was formed for the Presidential Elections, selecting Elections Commission and the Supreme Court. The whole idea, of course is to eliminate all other political parties and figures from the scene first, and then fight it out among themselves. I say, void my foot, again.
The reality is this. MDP and President Nasheed are making so many blunders that the public are going off them rapidly, and it is in their interest to have the elections quickly before the honeymoon period is over and the situation becomes unsalvageable. DRP has to move quickly before the public and DRP supporters realize that Qayyoom is gone for good, and the real disintegration of DRP starts happening in earnest. PA, of course, wants to make the best of the chaotic situation before the dust settles. Just as Anni’s win in the first round of Presidential Elections depended on the public being convinced that Qayyoom might win, an MDP win in the Parliamentary Elections also depend on the public being conned into believing that DRP may win, and President Nasheed maybe impeached, and therefore, Qayyoom may come back. These con arguments will not be sellable by about April/ May, which will sweep the rug from under MDP, DRP and PA.
It amuses me when Nasheed from DRP talks about constitutional violations when he was in the thick of it to the last minute when Qayyoom violated the Constitution everyday. As for Mariya, she was with Qayyoom and now with President Nasheed when the constitution was being, is being, violated everyday. President Nasheed? I don’t believe he even knows there IS a constitution. So why this sudden yearning for the Constitution?
Majlis has gone into recess. Strike one for the people.
Saturday, December 27, 2008
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Practising Liberty
Different people interpret the concept of liberty in different ways, and some emphasise different aspects more than others. For some, unhindered freedom of movement is of utmost importance. For others it may be the freedom expression which takes precedence over everything else. Yet others may ascribe deep commitment to the freedom of belief, conscience and worship. No matter which way you look at it, most human beings desire freedoms in different forms and varying degrees.
For me, liberty encompasses all those freedoms which will allow humans to live and shape their lives without being hindered by, and without hindering, others. In its purest form, the liberty of each person would allow him or her to do whatever s/he pleases, whenever and wherever s/he pleases to do it. However, the practicalities of social organization place limits and restrictions to this ideal.
The Constitution lists a number of rights and liberties, and Article 16 of the Constitution quite clearly stipulates that the only way to limit or narrow the scope of any of these rights is for Majlis to enact legislation to that effect, and even such legislation should be in line with acceptable practise in democratic societies. So, all Maldivians now have those rights and liberties, guaranteed by the Constitution. Why, then, are not people exercising those liberties to the full? The answer to this question is not all that simple. Among many reasons, I would contend, is that most Maldivians still are not aware of their constitutional rights, and neither are they clear on mechanisms and institutions which will protect their rights for them. Of course, this is notwithstanding the sorry state of these institutions themselves, particularly the Courts, the final arbiter of disputes.
In addition to these reasons are also obstacles emanating from social structures and organization. I would just like to dwell on a couple of these ‘obstacles’.
Anyone familiar with the works of Pierre Bourdieu, Henry Giroux, Anthony Giddens or Frank Parkin would also be familiar with the terms Social and Cultural Capital, Critical Pedagogy, Human Agency and Social Closure. While all these theories are extensive works worthy of discussion by themselves, let me just assert that each of these theories individually and collectively has much to offer in terms of analyzing and understanding the social situation of the Maldives right now. For many, the only consideration in the last Presidential election was ousting Qayyoom. But if we reflect on how Qayyoom sustained power, and what aspects of society and who in society contributed to the hegemony of Qayyoom, the picture of post-Qayyoom Maldives is far from rosy.
In a nutshell, it could be argued that over the years, certain classes had evolved in the Maldives which combined , constituted the ruling class. Initially it was the “beyfulhun” who had a birthright to rule. Maldivian equivalents to feudal lords, I suppose. Then came the merchant classes with the wealth. The first group to mount a challenge on these groups was the “educated” groups which slowly started to come in. Most of the dynamics of change began in earnest in the Qayyoom era. One could say that Qayyoom was the “unfortunate” ruler who had to bear the brunt of this. In the initial years, he quite successfully brought in the challengers through coercion or appeasement, into the folds of the ruling class and successfully closed off entry into the establishment by others. Thus, the Social and Cultural capital were continuously working in favour of the regime.
All this of course, meant that the Agency of people was diminished, and people did not think in terms of the effect on systems by individual action. The entire social machinery was geared to prevent individual action from taking place. As a result, the Reproduction and Maintenance of Class (Marx) was achieved with minimal effort, and the shaping factor was of course the form of society. Let me quote from Giddens :
“Society only has form, and that form only has effects on people, in so far as structure is produced and reproduced in what people do” Conversations with Anthony Giddens (Giddens and Pierson, 1998: 77)
If we view Human Agency as the capacity for human beings to make choices and to impose those choices on the world, how much Agency does the average Maldivian have? Not much.
Let me put this in a nutshell in terms of what is happening now. Resort owners used to back Qayyoom to the hilt. When they saw Qayyoom foundering, they found Hassan Saeed, a newer, fresher, younger Qayyoom who could be manipulated easily, and more importantly, did not have his own power base. When that bid failed, they entered the Alliance via Hassan Saeed, and lo and behold, President Nasheed, who had been lamenting about how the Maldivian People had been disempowered in their own land, and how only a few controlled the wealth of the country decided that one of the first bills he would propose to Majlis would be a bill which would secure the status quo for the backers. On the face of it, I would not oppose to stability and guarantees for investors. But what is happening in reality is that nothing is being extended to the new comers, and therefore, the old guard would now surely close off entry to the new comers. Politically this would serve President Nasheed quite well, because he is also uncertain of new comers, but he has come to understandings with the old guard. A classical application of Parkin, Bourdieu, Giroux and Giddens combined!
Effectively, the Maldivian population will still remain without Agency, and ultimately President Nasheed will also have to bow down to the same forces which tamed Qayyoom.
Which brings me to the practice of liberty issue. How can one practise his or her constitutional liberties when he or she is constrained and restricted by social chains? What is law in the face of social norms? For social norms are, in a sense more powerful than law, because there is acquiescence to norms, and the silence is often deafening.
Writing the Constitution was just the first step. The real work begins now. You cannot even begin to practise your liberties until these social structures have been dismantled. A social re-organizing is essential, and welfare handouts is not going to do the job. Distribution of Wealth by itself will not suffice. Distribution of the Means of Production has to take place. A completely new definition of the Welfare State is called for.
Oh God! Here is the heretic at work again. Damn!
By the way, Eid Mubarak to all.
For me, liberty encompasses all those freedoms which will allow humans to live and shape their lives without being hindered by, and without hindering, others. In its purest form, the liberty of each person would allow him or her to do whatever s/he pleases, whenever and wherever s/he pleases to do it. However, the practicalities of social organization place limits and restrictions to this ideal.
The Constitution lists a number of rights and liberties, and Article 16 of the Constitution quite clearly stipulates that the only way to limit or narrow the scope of any of these rights is for Majlis to enact legislation to that effect, and even such legislation should be in line with acceptable practise in democratic societies. So, all Maldivians now have those rights and liberties, guaranteed by the Constitution. Why, then, are not people exercising those liberties to the full? The answer to this question is not all that simple. Among many reasons, I would contend, is that most Maldivians still are not aware of their constitutional rights, and neither are they clear on mechanisms and institutions which will protect their rights for them. Of course, this is notwithstanding the sorry state of these institutions themselves, particularly the Courts, the final arbiter of disputes.
In addition to these reasons are also obstacles emanating from social structures and organization. I would just like to dwell on a couple of these ‘obstacles’.
Anyone familiar with the works of Pierre Bourdieu, Henry Giroux, Anthony Giddens or Frank Parkin would also be familiar with the terms Social and Cultural Capital, Critical Pedagogy, Human Agency and Social Closure. While all these theories are extensive works worthy of discussion by themselves, let me just assert that each of these theories individually and collectively has much to offer in terms of analyzing and understanding the social situation of the Maldives right now. For many, the only consideration in the last Presidential election was ousting Qayyoom. But if we reflect on how Qayyoom sustained power, and what aspects of society and who in society contributed to the hegemony of Qayyoom, the picture of post-Qayyoom Maldives is far from rosy.
In a nutshell, it could be argued that over the years, certain classes had evolved in the Maldives which combined , constituted the ruling class. Initially it was the “beyfulhun” who had a birthright to rule. Maldivian equivalents to feudal lords, I suppose. Then came the merchant classes with the wealth. The first group to mount a challenge on these groups was the “educated” groups which slowly started to come in. Most of the dynamics of change began in earnest in the Qayyoom era. One could say that Qayyoom was the “unfortunate” ruler who had to bear the brunt of this. In the initial years, he quite successfully brought in the challengers through coercion or appeasement, into the folds of the ruling class and successfully closed off entry into the establishment by others. Thus, the Social and Cultural capital were continuously working in favour of the regime.
All this of course, meant that the Agency of people was diminished, and people did not think in terms of the effect on systems by individual action. The entire social machinery was geared to prevent individual action from taking place. As a result, the Reproduction and Maintenance of Class (Marx) was achieved with minimal effort, and the shaping factor was of course the form of society. Let me quote from Giddens :
“Society only has form, and that form only has effects on people, in so far as structure is produced and reproduced in what people do” Conversations with Anthony Giddens (Giddens and Pierson, 1998: 77)
If we view Human Agency as the capacity for human beings to make choices and to impose those choices on the world, how much Agency does the average Maldivian have? Not much.
Let me put this in a nutshell in terms of what is happening now. Resort owners used to back Qayyoom to the hilt. When they saw Qayyoom foundering, they found Hassan Saeed, a newer, fresher, younger Qayyoom who could be manipulated easily, and more importantly, did not have his own power base. When that bid failed, they entered the Alliance via Hassan Saeed, and lo and behold, President Nasheed, who had been lamenting about how the Maldivian People had been disempowered in their own land, and how only a few controlled the wealth of the country decided that one of the first bills he would propose to Majlis would be a bill which would secure the status quo for the backers. On the face of it, I would not oppose to stability and guarantees for investors. But what is happening in reality is that nothing is being extended to the new comers, and therefore, the old guard would now surely close off entry to the new comers. Politically this would serve President Nasheed quite well, because he is also uncertain of new comers, but he has come to understandings with the old guard. A classical application of Parkin, Bourdieu, Giroux and Giddens combined!
Effectively, the Maldivian population will still remain without Agency, and ultimately President Nasheed will also have to bow down to the same forces which tamed Qayyoom.
Which brings me to the practice of liberty issue. How can one practise his or her constitutional liberties when he or she is constrained and restricted by social chains? What is law in the face of social norms? For social norms are, in a sense more powerful than law, because there is acquiescence to norms, and the silence is often deafening.
Writing the Constitution was just the first step. The real work begins now. You cannot even begin to practise your liberties until these social structures have been dismantled. A social re-organizing is essential, and welfare handouts is not going to do the job. Distribution of Wealth by itself will not suffice. Distribution of the Means of Production has to take place. A completely new definition of the Welfare State is called for.
Oh God! Here is the heretic at work again. Damn!
By the way, Eid Mubarak to all.
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Scary
In my last Post, I tried to highlight some of the issues with implementing the Constitution and related issues in the emerging new system of governance. From what I observe in Parliament and government machinery, there seem to be more than our fair share of teething problems. Perhaps more than meets the eye?
I have always believed that the benefit we get out of this Constitution will be directly proportional to the strength and integrity of the people sitting on the Supreme Court bench. The reason is quite simple. The government may err, the Parliament may step out of bounds, a trial court judge may be bent, a lawyer corrupt and the high court half asleep, but as long as the Supreme Court is on its toes, most wrongs can be righted. In short, the Supreme Court has the authority to, AND the responsibility of, upholding the Constitution, to the letter, and in its spirit. It is because of this, I made strenuous objections in Parliament when the Speaker was proceeding to ask for a vote on Supreme Court appointments without properly scrutinizing the nominees in Committee as per Parliamentary procedures.
Of course, at that time, when I made those objections in Parliament, demanding for proper scrutiny before confirming Supreme Court judges, everyone accused me of trying to delay the elections because I was an aspiring Presidential candidate. Remember, that was the time when The Void was looming large from above and beneath us. That was when learned men and women, prominent politicians and academics called me the “self proclaimed Thomas Jefferson”.
Anyway, the President nominated the bottom five from a list of eight proposed by the Judicial Services Commission, the Chair of the Judicial Services Commission refused to reveal their findings to Parliament, DRP and PA were falling head over heels to confirm these Judges, MDP and the Republicans staged a fine drama of talking against the appointments and then disappearing from the Majlis when the confirmations came up for vote. A not so fine day in Parliament. One of the worst days in the life of this Parliamentarian. Anyway, if I remember correctly, I was the only one who voted against confirming all five nominations.
Months later, today, comes Supreme Court Ruling number 2008/SC-RU/01. A phantom ruling that no one even asked for. All five Honourable Judges of the Supreme Court took it upon themselves to ask for a ruling from themselves regarding their own power over the entire Judiciary. Surprise, surprise, all five of them unanimously found the motion in their favour. The result? Strike down the article in the Judicial Services Commission Act which gives the JSC the powers to set out administrative procedures in the Courts, and to rule that the Judicial Administrative Services will from today take directives from, and report to, the Supreme Court. Apparently, this was necessary to ensure Judicial Independence. The fact that this effectively compromises the Independence of the Trial and High Court Judges through administrative and budgetary control doesn’t seem to matter.
Where does this leave us? What are its implications? A runaway Supreme Court. The next thing you know, they will take it upon themselves to bring out a ruling that the President and the Parliament should be subject to them. A fine case of Judicial Supremacy if ever there was one. Little do they realize that they have encroached into the powers of the Parliament big time – to amend the Constitution and make legislation. How on earth can the Supreme Court take it upon itself, to define powers for themselves? Bring out a ruling without being asked for one. Where is the precedent for this?
What do we do? Will the JSC and the Parliament have the guts to rein in this runaway Supreme Court and call for the dismissal of all five Judges?
More importantly, HOW MANY MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT ASSURED THESE FIVE JUDGES THAT A MOTION FOR DISMISSAL WILL NOT GET THE REQUIRED TWO THIRDS MAJORITY? There must be at least 17 who have colluded with the Judges.
Boy, or boy! Am I glad that I did not vote for any one of them on the day of confirmation!
I have always believed that the benefit we get out of this Constitution will be directly proportional to the strength and integrity of the people sitting on the Supreme Court bench. The reason is quite simple. The government may err, the Parliament may step out of bounds, a trial court judge may be bent, a lawyer corrupt and the high court half asleep, but as long as the Supreme Court is on its toes, most wrongs can be righted. In short, the Supreme Court has the authority to, AND the responsibility of, upholding the Constitution, to the letter, and in its spirit. It is because of this, I made strenuous objections in Parliament when the Speaker was proceeding to ask for a vote on Supreme Court appointments without properly scrutinizing the nominees in Committee as per Parliamentary procedures.
Of course, at that time, when I made those objections in Parliament, demanding for proper scrutiny before confirming Supreme Court judges, everyone accused me of trying to delay the elections because I was an aspiring Presidential candidate. Remember, that was the time when The Void was looming large from above and beneath us. That was when learned men and women, prominent politicians and academics called me the “self proclaimed Thomas Jefferson”.
Anyway, the President nominated the bottom five from a list of eight proposed by the Judicial Services Commission, the Chair of the Judicial Services Commission refused to reveal their findings to Parliament, DRP and PA were falling head over heels to confirm these Judges, MDP and the Republicans staged a fine drama of talking against the appointments and then disappearing from the Majlis when the confirmations came up for vote. A not so fine day in Parliament. One of the worst days in the life of this Parliamentarian. Anyway, if I remember correctly, I was the only one who voted against confirming all five nominations.
Months later, today, comes Supreme Court Ruling number 2008/SC-RU/01. A phantom ruling that no one even asked for. All five Honourable Judges of the Supreme Court took it upon themselves to ask for a ruling from themselves regarding their own power over the entire Judiciary. Surprise, surprise, all five of them unanimously found the motion in their favour. The result? Strike down the article in the Judicial Services Commission Act which gives the JSC the powers to set out administrative procedures in the Courts, and to rule that the Judicial Administrative Services will from today take directives from, and report to, the Supreme Court. Apparently, this was necessary to ensure Judicial Independence. The fact that this effectively compromises the Independence of the Trial and High Court Judges through administrative and budgetary control doesn’t seem to matter.
Where does this leave us? What are its implications? A runaway Supreme Court. The next thing you know, they will take it upon themselves to bring out a ruling that the President and the Parliament should be subject to them. A fine case of Judicial Supremacy if ever there was one. Little do they realize that they have encroached into the powers of the Parliament big time – to amend the Constitution and make legislation. How on earth can the Supreme Court take it upon itself, to define powers for themselves? Bring out a ruling without being asked for one. Where is the precedent for this?
What do we do? Will the JSC and the Parliament have the guts to rein in this runaway Supreme Court and call for the dismissal of all five Judges?
More importantly, HOW MANY MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT ASSURED THESE FIVE JUDGES THAT A MOTION FOR DISMISSAL WILL NOT GET THE REQUIRED TWO THIRDS MAJORITY? There must be at least 17 who have colluded with the Judges.
Boy, or boy! Am I glad that I did not vote for any one of them on the day of confirmation!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)