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.