During the second round campaigning of the last Presidential Elections I supported the MDP candidate against the DRP candidate and one of the campaign events I attended was at Nalahiya Building. This particular event was targeted at civil servants. Present at the meeting was MDP candidate Nasheed, his running mate Waheed, and if I remember correctly, also present was Aslam (the current Transport and Housing Minister), along with myself.
One of the purposes of the meeting was to reassure civil servants that they need not fear about losing their jobs with a change in government. That was not going to happen. This reassurance was necessary because MDP had been talking about the high costs of government, and had been promising the people that an MDP government would be mean and lean. There was growing concern amongst civil servants that the civil service would be chopped off to achieve the objective of a “small government”.
I specifically remember the candidate, Nasheed, saying in unequivocal language that the whole objective of the policy was to cut back the number of political appointments, making reference to the number of Ministers and State Ministers, Advisors and other such appointments made by Qayyoom. He assured those present at the meeting that civil servants would remain as they were, and that the political government would be drastically cut back, because a small nation such as the Maldives did not need all these Ministers, State Ministers and Advisors.
This promise was reiterated by the running mate, Waheed in more academic and elaborate language.
Immediately after being sworn in, President Nasheed declared a number of civil servants redundant and appointed 200 “Island Counselors” and 19 “Atoll Counselors” (posts which did not exist in the previous government). The number of Cabinet Ministers were revised somewhat, but the number of State Ministers are on the increase. For the first time in the history of the Maldives, we have resident State Ministers in various parts of the country.
I suppose with the advent of democracy, the size of the nation enlarged overnight.
Then came the coup-de-grace. Along with the Parliamentary Elections, The six promises were reduced to five, and not many even remember the sixth promise : that of a lean government. The only promise which could be completely achieved on the first day of the Nasheed Administration. The one promise, to achieve which, he did not even have to seek authorization from the Majlis or any other institution or person; and was totally at his discretion. The one promise which was very conveniently forgotten and swept under the carpet.
The Maldivian media is laughable. MDP lays out Six Promises to the people, turns around and drops one of them quietly on the wayside and start talking about five promises, and pronto, the media constantly talks about the Five Promises of MDP! Not one of the journalists in this country seems to remember there was a Sixth Promise, let alone what the Sixth Promise was!
I just had to pen this, folks. Lest we forget.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Monday, June 15, 2009
Development or Rule of Law?
“Nobody can rule against LAW, so just by saying rule of law means that you have nothing else to offer” (edu)
Ever since I entered the front line of reform and politics in the Maldives, I have been talking about the necessity of practicing the rule of law. I talked about it in the first “Minivan Bahus” way back in 2004 (it seems like centuries ago now!) and I spoke about it extensively in the last Presidential Elections. I visited every single populated island north of Male’, and some in the south as well, and spoke about it in every single one of those islands.
I have been criticized for getting “too hung up” on this issue. I have been ridiculed for preaching the rule of law “too much”. I have been accused of being an idiot because “the highest priority in the Maldives right now is Development” and I am not talking about that. The last comment on my last Post (Post Election) says it clearly, and that has prompted me to write this Post. I decided to dedicate a separate Post in reply to that comment because I believe that it warrants serious consideration.
In various discussions I had with different people and in debates in Parliament when I was there, and increasingly the stated rhetoric of the current government makes it clear that for some people, there is a certain dichotomy in the two, i.e Rule of Law vis-à-vis Development. Some see the two as two very separate and parallel concepts, while others view one as the anti-thesis of the other. I tend to view the two with a lot of overlap, if not almost synonymous. I certainly believe that Development cannot be achieved without the Rule of Law.
Most of those who believe in this dichotomy do so without analyzing the inextricable links between the two. They see the Rule of Law, or rather should I say the Law itself, in its entirety, as dealing with crime, human rights, social regulation and elections. Of course, if this narrow view of the Law and its application held water, then their view is correct. But unfortunately it doesn’t.
I could expound on the virtues of the Law and the Rule of Law at length, but not here. Let me focus instead, on my main argument, the Rule of Law – Development nexus.
Development is dependent on the growth of commerce and productivity. Commerce and productivity is dependent on willing labour and capital investment. Investors do not invest in environments where there is no certainty of protection for their investments. There are two ways to protect investments. One is to get the protection of powerful individuals and the other is to get the protection of the law. Labour is only willing in an environment where their rights are protected and there is certainty about award wages and remuneration. This can only be guaranteed either through the protection accorded by powerful individuals or through the protection by the law.
If the investors and the labour both seek protection from the same powerful individual, what happens when there is a conflict between the investor and the labour? Would investors want to risk millions of dollars of their money, depending on the good will of an individual?
The solution to these problems lie in the second alternative : both parties should seek the protection of the law. The Rule of Law must prevail for industry to thrive. Industry does not thrive except in a competitive free market. Competitors do not have the room to play in the absence of the rule of law, because if two competitors depended on two powerful individuals for protection, there will not be room for two. The more powerful of the two powerful individuals will eventually triumph and only one will survive.
When I say the Rule of Law here, I am talking about basic things such as : equal opportunity for all, the certainty that certain things will happen in certain ways and that goals can’t be shifted after the ball is struck , that there will be justice delivered without fear or favour in the case of disputes.
Just a week ago, I spoke to a friend of mine from overseas. She spoke about the opportunities for investment in the Maldives, but she was hesitant to engage in investment because she was not convinced that there was a sound enough legal framework and a good enough justice system for her to take that risk. One of the first things that serious investors do when planning an investment is to look at the provisions in the law, and the application of it in the courts. I am certain that if the legal framework in this country is strengthened, and institutions dealing with upholding the law are also strengthened, this will boost the confidence of potential investors…..and ultimately lead to development.
What are the prospects in this regard? Hard to say. I hope the new Majlis, and the Courts with newly gained independence will work towards guaranteeing this important framework. However, the key players in the game are consumed with power consolidation and power grabbing contributing towards deteriorating the strength of the law. I was apalled just last night, at a forum I attended, to hear prominent lawyers, the government spokesman and MPs urging the Prosecutor General to disregard the law for political expediency, of course, in the name of Maslaha. An indication of what is to come?
Following the law is not an easy thing. It does impede the speed of some activities. It even can have unfair consequences at times. But follow it we must. If a particular law is having undesirable consequences through its application, then we must change the law quickly. But until it is changed, it must be followed to the letter, because if not, the whole legal system can be made a mockery at the whim and fancy of various individuals for various purposes. That is why we wrote into the Constitution, in black and white, requirements for the President, the Attorney General, Judges and Independent Commissions to the follow the Constitution and the Law only, at all times.
Therefore, I believe that a system where the Law rules supreme is a pre-condition for proper development, with equitable outcomes, to take place.
My obsession with the Rule of Law stems from my desire for Development and Justice for the people of my country.
Ever since I entered the front line of reform and politics in the Maldives, I have been talking about the necessity of practicing the rule of law. I talked about it in the first “Minivan Bahus” way back in 2004 (it seems like centuries ago now!) and I spoke about it extensively in the last Presidential Elections. I visited every single populated island north of Male’, and some in the south as well, and spoke about it in every single one of those islands.
I have been criticized for getting “too hung up” on this issue. I have been ridiculed for preaching the rule of law “too much”. I have been accused of being an idiot because “the highest priority in the Maldives right now is Development” and I am not talking about that. The last comment on my last Post (Post Election) says it clearly, and that has prompted me to write this Post. I decided to dedicate a separate Post in reply to that comment because I believe that it warrants serious consideration.
In various discussions I had with different people and in debates in Parliament when I was there, and increasingly the stated rhetoric of the current government makes it clear that for some people, there is a certain dichotomy in the two, i.e Rule of Law vis-à-vis Development. Some see the two as two very separate and parallel concepts, while others view one as the anti-thesis of the other. I tend to view the two with a lot of overlap, if not almost synonymous. I certainly believe that Development cannot be achieved without the Rule of Law.
Most of those who believe in this dichotomy do so without analyzing the inextricable links between the two. They see the Rule of Law, or rather should I say the Law itself, in its entirety, as dealing with crime, human rights, social regulation and elections. Of course, if this narrow view of the Law and its application held water, then their view is correct. But unfortunately it doesn’t.
I could expound on the virtues of the Law and the Rule of Law at length, but not here. Let me focus instead, on my main argument, the Rule of Law – Development nexus.
Development is dependent on the growth of commerce and productivity. Commerce and productivity is dependent on willing labour and capital investment. Investors do not invest in environments where there is no certainty of protection for their investments. There are two ways to protect investments. One is to get the protection of powerful individuals and the other is to get the protection of the law. Labour is only willing in an environment where their rights are protected and there is certainty about award wages and remuneration. This can only be guaranteed either through the protection accorded by powerful individuals or through the protection by the law.
If the investors and the labour both seek protection from the same powerful individual, what happens when there is a conflict between the investor and the labour? Would investors want to risk millions of dollars of their money, depending on the good will of an individual?
The solution to these problems lie in the second alternative : both parties should seek the protection of the law. The Rule of Law must prevail for industry to thrive. Industry does not thrive except in a competitive free market. Competitors do not have the room to play in the absence of the rule of law, because if two competitors depended on two powerful individuals for protection, there will not be room for two. The more powerful of the two powerful individuals will eventually triumph and only one will survive.
When I say the Rule of Law here, I am talking about basic things such as : equal opportunity for all, the certainty that certain things will happen in certain ways and that goals can’t be shifted after the ball is struck , that there will be justice delivered without fear or favour in the case of disputes.
Just a week ago, I spoke to a friend of mine from overseas. She spoke about the opportunities for investment in the Maldives, but she was hesitant to engage in investment because she was not convinced that there was a sound enough legal framework and a good enough justice system for her to take that risk. One of the first things that serious investors do when planning an investment is to look at the provisions in the law, and the application of it in the courts. I am certain that if the legal framework in this country is strengthened, and institutions dealing with upholding the law are also strengthened, this will boost the confidence of potential investors…..and ultimately lead to development.
What are the prospects in this regard? Hard to say. I hope the new Majlis, and the Courts with newly gained independence will work towards guaranteeing this important framework. However, the key players in the game are consumed with power consolidation and power grabbing contributing towards deteriorating the strength of the law. I was apalled just last night, at a forum I attended, to hear prominent lawyers, the government spokesman and MPs urging the Prosecutor General to disregard the law for political expediency, of course, in the name of Maslaha. An indication of what is to come?
Following the law is not an easy thing. It does impede the speed of some activities. It even can have unfair consequences at times. But follow it we must. If a particular law is having undesirable consequences through its application, then we must change the law quickly. But until it is changed, it must be followed to the letter, because if not, the whole legal system can be made a mockery at the whim and fancy of various individuals for various purposes. That is why we wrote into the Constitution, in black and white, requirements for the President, the Attorney General, Judges and Independent Commissions to the follow the Constitution and the Law only, at all times.
Therefore, I believe that a system where the Law rules supreme is a pre-condition for proper development, with equitable outcomes, to take place.
My obsession with the Rule of Law stems from my desire for Development and Justice for the people of my country.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Post Election
Following the Parliamentary Elections, many have asked me about the outcome, both regarding the constituency I contested in, and in more general terms, nationally. I have not commented on either, other than to say that with regard to my own campaign, that I accept the decision of the public.
The first question asked from me by the media was of course, whether the result of the election meant that my political career was over. I was asked the same question over and over again following the Presidential Elections. I sometimes mull over what might happen to a nation if everyone who loses an election left the political stage. How many more politicians would be forthcoming?
The outcome of any election simply means that the public decided in a particular way at that point in time. They are at complete liberty to change their minds and go 180 in the next election. This is more so in parliamentary elections. But it seems to me that for some reason, there are a number of ‘powerful’ people who are rather anxiously waiting for me to declare that I have quit politics.
There is one myth which has been created that in 2005 I was elected to the Majlis by MDP, and therefore, my failure to secure the seat this time was because I left MDP. The wisdom goes on to say I should rejoin MDP to ensure centre stage in the political arena. The fact however is, that I got elected to the Majlis long before political parties became a reality in the Maldives. Selective amnesia, I suppose.
But there is one important question to be addressed in this regard. Do I want to be elected to the Majlis so badly, that I would sell my soul to the devil? If I seek election, why do I seek it? Is it for personal fame and gain, or to work towards achieving certain national goals while still retaining my morality and principles? Would I become part of a farce simply to declare that I am an MP?
There are two paths to the Majlis. One is to see which way the tide is turning, get on the band-wagon which is most likely to win, and sail through. That way, you could be changing loyalties every other day. But the question then is, what do you hope to achieve out of it? The second way is to feel a lot of passion for what you believe in with regard to your nation, convince enough people that what you are trying to do is good for the nation, and get a mandate from those people to act on their behalf in making national decisions. I chose the second path in 2004 and 2005 and again in 2008 and 2009. I succeeded in 2004 and 2005; but I failed in 2008 and 2009.
I failed to convince enough people of Machangolhi Uthuru constituency that the Majlis should be a place which focuses on the national interest rather than be an arena for two individuals to feed their egos via proxies and in the process destroy the nation. I tried, but I failed. Now that I have failed, I must accept the following fact.
The fact is, that the majority of Maldivian people do not want democracy or the rule of law. They just want to empower individuals who will look after their personal interests, and a government which will provide personal opportunities for them at the cost of their neighbour’s opportunities. Feudalism at its best. This is the harsh reality. Corrupt politicians can only succeed in a nation of corrupt or apathetic voters.
The question for me, then is, am I willing to ‘go with the tide’ to win political power? No, Thank you.
The first question asked from me by the media was of course, whether the result of the election meant that my political career was over. I was asked the same question over and over again following the Presidential Elections. I sometimes mull over what might happen to a nation if everyone who loses an election left the political stage. How many more politicians would be forthcoming?
The outcome of any election simply means that the public decided in a particular way at that point in time. They are at complete liberty to change their minds and go 180 in the next election. This is more so in parliamentary elections. But it seems to me that for some reason, there are a number of ‘powerful’ people who are rather anxiously waiting for me to declare that I have quit politics.
There is one myth which has been created that in 2005 I was elected to the Majlis by MDP, and therefore, my failure to secure the seat this time was because I left MDP. The wisdom goes on to say I should rejoin MDP to ensure centre stage in the political arena. The fact however is, that I got elected to the Majlis long before political parties became a reality in the Maldives. Selective amnesia, I suppose.
But there is one important question to be addressed in this regard. Do I want to be elected to the Majlis so badly, that I would sell my soul to the devil? If I seek election, why do I seek it? Is it for personal fame and gain, or to work towards achieving certain national goals while still retaining my morality and principles? Would I become part of a farce simply to declare that I am an MP?
There are two paths to the Majlis. One is to see which way the tide is turning, get on the band-wagon which is most likely to win, and sail through. That way, you could be changing loyalties every other day. But the question then is, what do you hope to achieve out of it? The second way is to feel a lot of passion for what you believe in with regard to your nation, convince enough people that what you are trying to do is good for the nation, and get a mandate from those people to act on their behalf in making national decisions. I chose the second path in 2004 and 2005 and again in 2008 and 2009. I succeeded in 2004 and 2005; but I failed in 2008 and 2009.
I failed to convince enough people of Machangolhi Uthuru constituency that the Majlis should be a place which focuses on the national interest rather than be an arena for two individuals to feed their egos via proxies and in the process destroy the nation. I tried, but I failed. Now that I have failed, I must accept the following fact.
The fact is, that the majority of Maldivian people do not want democracy or the rule of law. They just want to empower individuals who will look after their personal interests, and a government which will provide personal opportunities for them at the cost of their neighbour’s opportunities. Feudalism at its best. This is the harsh reality. Corrupt politicians can only succeed in a nation of corrupt or apathetic voters.
The question for me, then is, am I willing to ‘go with the tide’ to win political power? No, Thank you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)