The Hindu : Opinion / Editorials : A MESSAGE FOR GAYOOM

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Friday, Jan 28, 2005

Opinion

Opinion - Editorials

A MESSAGE FOR GAYOOM

THERE IS LITTLE that is democratic about parliamentary elections in the Maldives. Political parties are banned. Candidates can contest only as "independents" and cannot campaign. And until now, only those with a demonstrated record of unquestioning loyalty to President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom could win, turning the 50-member majlis (eight members are nominated by the President), as the parliament is known, into a rubber stamp for his decisions. But the claim by the Sri Lanka-based Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP), which is leading the movement for democratic and political reform in the country, that 18 of the candidates who won in last week's parliamentary elections were backed by it, has given the five-yearly charade an interesting twist. Supporters of the Gayoom regime, helped by the inability of the winners to declare any affiliation, contest the number but cannot deny the victory of well-known activists of the movement for democratic and political reform in the Maldives such as Ibrahim Ismail, jailed last year for more than two months on charges of attempting to overthrow the government. Their success was unexpected: in August 2003, sensing that the pro-democracy movement was gathering strength, the Maldivian Government imposed an Emergency and jailed politicians it suspected of involvement in the movement. The Emergency was lifted only after pressure was exerted by the European Union and others in the international community, but several reformists continue to languish in prison. Following the crackdown, many pro-democracy activists backed down from contesting the election. The MDP also alleged that the Government intimidated voters in the tsunami-hit areas by threatening to withhold relief. Even accepting the official denial of this charge, there seemed little likelihood of any of the 36 MDP-backed candidates winning.

The Maldivian Government has quickly seized on the victory of the known "opposition" candidates as evidence that the elections were free and fair. But the real message is that despite a battery of repressive measures and the absence of a free press, the movement for democracy and constitutional reform in the Maldives appears to have sunk deep roots. President Gayoom, who has shepherded the country since 1978 in an iron-fisted way, can no longer pretend the challenge to his authoritarianism does not exist. Following the elections, he has appeared more conciliatory, declaring that the Maldives would become a multi-party democracy "within one year's time." Last year, in an effort seemingly to neutralise the pro-democracy movement and to placate the international community, Mr. Gayoom proposed changes to the country's Constitution and set up a Constituent Assembly. The proposals on the table include a directly elected President who can hold office only for two five-year terms, freedom of association, the right to contest elections for women, a separation of powers between the executive and the legislature, and the introduction of the office of Prime Minister. Although these proposed changes are nothing short of radical for the Maldives, the Constituent Assembly was given no time-frame to finalise the new Constitution and has only met twice so far, reinforcing the impression that the whole exercise is an eye-wash. But the President has now set himself a time-table and must be held to it.

Certainly, the pro-democracy movement, strengthened by its showing in the elections, will do so. It will also look to New Delhi for support in this endeavour. India has so far remained aloof from the goings-on in the Maldives. When Mr. Gayoom sent a Special Envoy to New Delhi last year to explain the Emergency and the arrests, the Indian Government assured him of its continued friendship and also expressed the hope that the process of constitutional reform would continue. It is of course proper and just to avoid anything smacking of interference in the internal affairs of another country, especially a small neighbour. At the same time, New Delhi must not give the impression that it supports President Gayoom's repressive regime.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

News Update

Stories in this Section

AN AVOIDABLE TRAGEDY

A MESSAGE FOR GAYOOM

We will not discriminate against LTTE-held areas: Kadirgamar

EU's indecision over Kosovo