It’s the end of 2012 and what a year it has been. Almost one year ago I remember having a conversation with someone who wrote a daily blog for 365 days in 2011 - he wrote pieces on his wedding day and even during his honeymoon! I was inspired by his commitment and although my blogging ambitions were different to his, I had a lot of fun writing whatever I could manage in what turned out to be a very hectic and eventful year. This piece is a reflection of my experience of blogging and more importantly it is my reflections on the events that occurred in the Maldives in 2012.

For years I have been writing and speaking to friends and family about socio-political problems in the Maldives and the experience of writing a blog has provided me a different platform to engage in such discussions with a wider audience. Interestingly, this blog has also allowed me to test the boundaries of freedom of expression in the Maldives. The experience of writing about the Maldives has taught me a few lessons. One important lesson has been that freedom of expression is still just an idea, albeit a popular one, in the Maldives but is not yet held by all - political parties and their supporters are still far from embracing the norms and behaviour congruent with a genuine democratic society in the Maldives. I have received threats due to some of my writings, which show the mentality of some people in the country and reminds me of the limitations of freedom of expression in the Maldives.

This blog is not a consequence of the events of February 7^th 2012, but the events of that day had us all looking for answers. I wrote a tribute to former President Nasheed because I respected him and believed he should have been allowed to complete his term despite his shortcomings. Following the Commission of National Inquiry (CONI) report and a number of other investigations from different sides, it is clear that the legitimacy transfer of power can be argued in different ways. My conclusion now is that the transfer of power ticked all the legal boxes and therefore, can be claimed as a legal transfer of power and not a coup. But, did it tick all the boxes expected of a democratic society? Clearly it didn’t, because otherwise we wouldn’t have so many outraged factions across the country. More importantly, the legality of the transfer of power does not remove agency from the actors who set back the democratisation process of the country and incited lawlessness and violence in the country prior to February 7th. I am guessing that the events of the day will keep us debating for many decades to come.

Unfortunately, President Waheed does not seem to have any set policies or strategies apart from fulfilling the demands of the people that brought him to his position. I don’t know what direction he wants the country to go in - liberal, religious, modern? He is too busy cleaning up the mess that brought him to power and I remain convinced that he is only the ‘crisis president’ and that his presidency will only be remembered for how he came to power, not for what he did for the country.

I appreciate the fact that many Maldivians look up to Mohamed Nasheed as their leader, but over the past 7-8 months he has not helped the situation in the country. He is a public figure who wants to be in power in a deeply divided country, so excuse me for expecting more from him.  I expect his commitment to his country to supersede his political ambitions, but he has failed to meet my expectations many times over the past several months. For example, his warnings to foreign investors about his own country; the recent declaration by him to attempt to overthrow the government from the streets; and asking GMR to stay despite a government ruling, undermines his own country, his party and his political position. Sadly, it just shows the lengths he is willing to go to return to power. He is an activist, not the peace broker and leader the Maldives desperately needs.

The murder of MP Dr. Afrashim Ali in October 2012 had a profound impact on us all. We lost an inspirational religious thinker who was brave enough to challenge extremist religious thinkers and smart enough to explain religious issues to the masses with extensive knowledge about his subject matter. His murder rang alarm bells across the country over the gravity of lawlessness and political violence prevalent in the Maldives, but these alarm bells did not last long. Even last week MP Alhan Fahmy was physically assaulted by an unknown group of individuals at a public gathering, and little has changed on the ground to bring law and order back to the streets.

One thing we have learned from the events of 2012 is that Adhaalath Party must be isolated. No party should align with this hate-preaching, misogynistic and anti-democracy group, regardless of the potential short-term political benefits of doing so. People ask me why I am so critical of Adhaalath Party and the answer is simple. They want to restrict my right to exist as an equal human being; they preach hatred towards anyone with different thoughts, beliefs and ideas; and they misuse Islam to spread venom across the country.  Moreover, they have no policies, no plans and no solutions to our problems but only a determination to manipulate every incident and situation to meet their needs. Religious parties exist in all democracies and have a right to exist, but for anyone aspiring to have a peaceful democratic existence, such parties should never be empowered to dictate to the whole country, particularly in divided societies.

The government take-over of the airport from GMR was the right decision, difficult and controversial as it may be. Economic theory suggests that you should not privatise monopolies, particularly where there are no balances and measures to ensure consumers are protected in society. The longer the airport was under GMR control, the longer the conflict over it would have dragged out. The costs and benefits of the GMR deal can be debated but I won’t undervalue our sovereignty, especially following the Indian governments’ reaction to the take-over.

I still believe MDP might be the way forward in 2013 because if we look around the political spectrum of the Maldives, MDP is more likely to be liberal and perhaps genuinely believe in democratic principles. Their actions can be controversial but at least they aspire to be something I believe in. I’m not so sure about what drives PPM and the rest – religion, power, or a desire for positive change. I guess we have to wait for the manifestoes of 2013 to find out.

Another year has passed and we are still as far away as ever from realising our democratic dreams. 2013 will no doubt be eventful due to the election, and I shall remain optimistic about the future despite the challenges ahead. Politicians continue to fail us through their partisan approach to the problems we face, so the tenacity within us, the people, needs to be reinvigorated with a new determination to change our attitudes towards those who think differently from ourselves and most importantly, to put the country ahead of our individual alliances. 

Happy New Year!

We are fooling ourselves if we think that democracy is the only game in the Maldives because, given the events of the past three years it is fair to say that we are still a democracy in principle rather than in practice. The existing authoritarian and undemocratic enclaves prevalent within our socio-political system support this argument. By authoritarian enclaves I refer to the prevalent corruption, the lack of respect for the constitution and the rule of law, and the continuous stifling of our civil and political rights by the so-called political fanatics, ‘vanguards’ of democracy and religious scholars in the Maldives.

It is true, old habits die hard. After 30 years of repression and authoritarian rule we still continue to focus on personalities; our institutions are not independent of specific personalities and as a society we continue to limit each other’s political freedoms. We need to liberate ourselves from our traditional, personalised patronage politics. We need to liberate ourselves from the old habits.

To be democratic we need to understand that the rule of law precedes everything; civil liberties such as freedom of expression should be exercised with responsibility and as a society we need to make informed and responsible decisions in selecting and electing those who represent our voice.

President Waheed was right when he said on Hardtalk that ‘we have come to this point because we have not respected our constitution. We have not respected the rule of law. The last thing I want to do is to circumvent our constitution’. So when and where have we circumvented our constitution? Without going into the details of Gayyoom’s 30 year authoritarian regime, if we begin with the dawn of our democracy following the election of Mohamed Nasheed, when and where have the laws of the land been flouted? Where have we failed at democracy?

The rule of law was flouted when the Supreme Court was locked down under the order of Nasheed. The rule of law was flouted when a senior judge was ‘judgenapped’ and arrested. We failed at democracy when projects or investment opportunities were given to political party aides and cronies without declaration of ‘conflict of interest’ or without a fair bidding process. We failed at democracy as the number of family ties increased within the top brass of the state institutions. We failed at democracy as murderers, rapists and child molesters walk free. We failed at democracy when we failed to listen to public protests for 22 consecutive days, regardless of whether they were 200 people, a minority, or 100,000 people.

During Nasheed’s regime, the opposition too failed at democracy because they refused to accept the rules of the game of democracy. Over the past couple of years the opposition have been hell bent on creating parliamentary deadlocks which delayed the enactment of key legislations; used religious fervour to rile up anti-MDP sentiments and backed questionable characters to achieve their political goals. Democracy is not the only game in town if the losers of an election do not accept their defeat. If we see democracy under the axiom of a game, it will only continue to work if the losers in the game want to play/try again within the same institutional framework under which they lost.

Our constitutional sins reached a new level on 7^th February 2012. The constitution of our country was punched in the face when our democratically elected leader was ousted in a coup. If Nasheed was such a failure, his removal should have been by the rule of law, by the people and by the ballot. Whether by the fate of circumstances, by Nasheed’s own making or by advanced planning the removal of an elected President by force, has set a very dangerous precedent here and in my opinion this constitutional sin is worse than anything Nasheed ever did.

I am willing to accept that politicians from all sides have failed to uphold the rule of law in the past, move forward and draw lessons from it. So I ask President Waheed, since he holds the reigns now, what is his plan to uphold and maintain the rule of law? The current government’s commitment to democracy will continue to be tested and judged by the disgruntled opposition until the next election. Until then I hope our fragile democracy will continue to withstand the pressures and shocks without abandoning the electoral process ever again.  The lesson for all of us is, never again should the constitution and rule of law be abandoned under the guise of upholding democracy.

I am not really concerned about ‘who’ is in power as long as the person in power is there through legitimate means and is concerned about implementing positive change. We have intellectuals on both sides of the political spectrum. Our infant democracy was born by the work of several people. For every protester there was an intelligent and energetic policymaker creating the rules of the game. For instance, Nasheed is a great orator and a true torch bearer for democracy. While Nasheed carried the torch, there were policy makers behind the table such as Dr. Ahmed Shaheed, Dr. Hassan Saeed, and Dr. Waheed who rigorously used other channels to bring democracy to our country. All of them should be credited for their contributions regardless of which side of the table they are on.

Some of our MP’s display appalling behaviour, ignorance and a lack of professionalism. Some are borderline criminals. When the next election confronts us, we as the electorate have a moral responsibility to select and elect leaders who are competent, crime-free and open-minded.

One of the fundamental components of democracy is freedom of expression, because without it, free elections mean nothing.  We do enjoy ‘freedom of expression’ in the Maldives but without any responsibility. Freedom of expression is an abused freedom in the Maldives because religious extremists use it to spread their religious fatwas, war-mongerers use it to spread their hate, politicians use it create division and the media uses it spread half-truths. Where is our sense of social responsibility when we exercise freedom of expression?

We need to remember that before the 7^th of February there were thousands of people that opposed MDP and exercised their fundamental right to criticize. The coup was not undertaken by the opposition supporters, therefore, why should they be labelled as ‘baghees’ (traitors)? The level of cyber bullying evident on social media towards anyone associated with the current government is one example where freedom of opinion is violated. The number of people that tell me that they are afraid to show their support to the parties they supported prior to 7^th February due to fear of being labelled as ‘baghee’  is proof enough that freedom of opinion and expression is no longer a given. Without proper freedom of thought, opinion and association we will never be able to safeguard the integrity of our elections.

As a society that aspires to be democratic we all have a social responsibility to respect the rule of law, exercise our freedoms with responsibility and empower politicians for the right reasons. We are the drivers of change and politicians are only the mediators we select to implement the change we want.

Some studies suggest that most newly democratising countries will go through a phase of violence or instability before democracy fully settles in. Some argue that it is a temporary phase. I am hoping this is our temporary phase. I am hoping that we learn from our mistakes. I am praying that this storm passes soon.

I am very fortunate to receive varied and often thought provoking comments on many of my blog posts. One comment which I always find interesting is when someone says that my articles are ‘biased’ towards one political party or another. What does it mean to be biased in the current political climate of the Maldives? Biased towards what?

As a society that aspires to be democratic, we need to understand that in democratic politics policies, practices and processes of state institutions are normally heavily scrutinised by the public, opposition groups, the media and social groups. Unfortunately, in the Maldives criticism is taken very negatively and even those who call for freedom of expression and opinion are unable to embrace criticism when it is directed towards them. For anyone writing on the Maldives, one has to be very cautious of naming individuals or groups because such criticism can be perceived as a personal attack or party bias. For instance, if I criticise PPM for their questionable religious agenda I may be seen as being biased towards liberal MDP, whereas if I criticise MDP’s corrupt practices I may be seen as being biased towards Gayyoom.

More often than not people find it hard to appreciate criticism without taking it personally and tend to think that the critic has a personal agenda or is a ‘spy’ of a particular party. This explains why political debate in the Maldives is heavily engulfed in name-calling, slander and allegations, rather than accepting criticism as a means to re-evaluate one’s own position and thinking. Even if a point is sensible and well intentioned, your views are likely to be judged by some as biased towards whatever party your views are in line with.

We embarked on a democratic transition because we wanted to work together as a country despite divided opinions. Most Maldivians are aligned to certain parties and public figures for different reasons. My 83 year old grandmother supports Nasheed (unlike anyone I know) because after 83 gruelling years of poverty and hard work, Nasheed’s basic pension scheme provided her with some state benefit at the age of 80. It had taken her 80 years to reap any benefit from the government – a reminder to us all that the wealth of the country never trickled down to people at the bottom of the social ladder. Everyone who is at all interested in politics has their own political position and will support those most aligned to that position. This can be for a variety of reasons, be it for religion, for power, for wealth, for jobs, or for justice. Having an inclination towards one party or leader is being human. The problem with the likes of my grandmother (and many others!) is that their support for Nasheed, Gayyoom or President Waheed is unconditional and clouds their judgement of what is fundamentally right and wrong.

You can support the call for an election, an end to police brutality and call for a fully fledged independent inquiry into the events of the 7^th and 8^th February, but it does not necessarily make you biased towards MDP. In a similar vein, you can support negotiation, compromise and peaceful cooperation on national matters, but that does not mean you are biased towards DRP/PPM. You can also condemn indiscriminate attacks on police officers and protests that invoke or perpetrate violence, but that does not make you a ‘Baghee’ or ‘Traitor’.

I have been described as the “high priestess of colourless mentality”, which I embrace as a compliment. The term ‘colourless’ is a recently coined term in the wake of the political crisis in the Maldives. It is essentially a character description for those in the Maldives that want to create a common ground despite divided opinions. I see that many members of the ‘colourless’ group(s) support one party or another, but are able to see beyond their party ‘colours’. However, there are others who see being ‘colourless’ as “moral cowardice” or indifference. I disagree with this view because in every society experiencing a conflict there will always be a group that calls for peace and justice, be it partisan or non-partisan. I can see that there are thousands of Maldivians who are stuck in the middle of this conflict that just want the current conflict to be resolved peacefully.

If being colourless means refusal to follow political speculation blindly; analysing things from various angles and making a stand where you see problems, I would love to be thought of as the ‘high priestess of colourless mentality’!

Being colourless does not mean you are not allowed to have a political view. But, having a political view does not mean you stand idle when you see obvious wrongs either.

At the moment we are too busy throwing arguments at each other trying to justify the actions of the police, MDP or the current government, but unfortunately this does not reduce the immediate problems of lawlessness, violence and state legitimacy issues in our country. The example below shows the nonsensical manner in which a daunting and pressing issue such as ‘police brutality’ is likely to be discussed amongst us right now.

Discussion topic: Stop police brutality!

Participant A: You are only calling for an end to police brutality because you are biased towards Nasheed and you want MDP to be back in power. What about police brutality during Nasheed’s regime? Why should they be any different now?

Participant B: You should have complained if there was police violence during Nasheed’s regime. You shouldn’t have overthrown a democratically elected leader. Where is my vote? They were beating our brothers/fathers/sisters on 8^th February. They need to be stopped by all means. Jahaifiyya Jahaanan.

The above discussion is a typical nonsensical discussion over a topic where the call against police brutality should be agreeable to both in an ideal world. Both participants’ moral judgements are clearly clouded by their political allegiances. Participant A refuses to accept that police brutality is a problem, only because the brutality isn’t against his/her side; Participant B brushes off police brutality during Nasheed’s regime as irrelevant and encourages retaliation by all means. You cannot call for non-violence whilst saying you will resort to ‘all means’ to bring an end to non-violence.

If MDP or anyone else wants the rest of the country to join their ‘stop police brutality’ campaign for example, a good way to start would be by reaching out to the ordinary people without any infiltration of party propaganda. Maybe their own marches calling for good things should be less yellow and more Maldivian so that more people will vouch for their good messages. If people believe that police brutality should be stopped they should join any march against police brutality wearing a white t-shirt or red t-shirt with a placard stating I AM PROUD TO BE COLOURLESS BUT I DISAGREE WITH POLICE BRUTALITY or in other instances I SUPPORT DRP BUT I AM AGAINST POLICE BRUTALITY.

Our sense of rational thinking and good nature should not be clouded by our political inclinations. Be proud to have an opinion, but do not let it blind you to all other viewpoints!

Democracy has become a facade. The media is a production of our politicians. The members of the security forces are bullied and attacked. Freedom of expression is no longer a given. Peace has become a pipedream. Our paradise has been cursed.

Over the past week I have had mixed emotions over the political unrest in my beloved country and I am certain I am not the only one who is frustrated and tired of the political chaos in the Maldives. It is as if we have learned nothing from 30 years of authoritarian rule.

Let me begin with the lead actor in this political drama - Mohamed Nasheed. He announced his resignation to the national media but the next day he claimed that he resigned at gun-point.

“There were guns all around me and they told me they wouldn’t hesitate to use them if I didn’t resign.” – Mohamed Nasheed

Nasheed’s statement that he was forced to resign at gunpoint stoked the political fires and greatly increased the emotional response to his overthrow, plunging the country into further violence and chaos. It also helped to publicise his ‘undemocratic, unjust overthrow’ around the world through the international media. A few days later he admitted that he was not literally at gunpoint, claiming he had used the term metaphorically. Last week Nasheed stated that the security forces were unable to shoot at the public only because he refused to give them the key to the ‘gun’ storage – an attempt to create further animosity towards the security forces. I honestly don’t believe a single word that comes out of his mouth anymore. Yes, clearly he was forced to resign but my view is that his departure was inevitable.

None of us know the truth of what exactly happened on the day Nasheed resigned, and I suspect we will not know until a full and independent investigation is carried out. Yet we all choose to pick a side of the story. We only hear what Nasheed, President Waheed or other politicians say, and none of them are telling the truth in its entirety, with the exception of Umar Naseer and Reeko Moosa - two political personalities who are incapable of controlling their militant tongues and who are both obsessed with Gayyoom in their own ways.

Over the past three years Nasheed’s popularity has been dwindling and I doubt he would have had a chance in the 2013 elections until a few weeks ago. Fortunately for Nasheed, his forced resignation has actually increased his popularity and he is milking this opportunity to mobilise support for himself. What saddens me is that Nasheed and his party, MDP, are doing this at the expense of public order, public institutions and everything good about our country. They are undermining the very democratic principles that they think they are fighting for by bullying and threatening anyone that opposes them.

I understand MDP supporters and their MP’s are frustrated, but their anger has turned to militancy and a blatant disregard for anyone with a view different to their own. This country belongs to us all and the Parliament is a forum for debate and discussion by members elected by all of us. The blocking of the Parliament by MDP MP’s and the disrespect shown has, in my opinion, damaged our democracy because they have set a precedent here.  The picture below shows the scuffles that took place inside the Parliament building on the on 1^st March 2012. MDP MP’s hijacked the Parliament and blocked the President and the Speaker of the Parliament from entering.  

Pure class shown by MDP MP’s – one has a bin on his head and another is sitting on top of the Speaker’s bench.

You can call President Waheed ‘Baghee’ or ‘Puppet’, but having read his international profile, namely his humanitarian work around the global and the crucial role he played in our own democratic process, I do believe he is a more capable candidate for the Presidency. Nasheed is a great activist and he can run a rally and organise fantastic protests, but he does not know how to run a country.  I don’t know whether President Waheed was responsible for the orchestration of the overthrow of Nasheed but his international profile speaks volumes. However, I do question his inability to answer many questions raised about the events of the overthrow. As the second in command of the country I expect him to be politically aware, so no doubt he would have known how Nasheed’s overthrow unfolded.   

Currently Nasheed is doing a fantastic job in ensuring the Western media follows his one-sided story. I fail to understand why the Western media continues to glorify Nasheed’s profile and confuses his role and responsibilities as a nation’s leader with that of being an advocate for good causes.  Mark Lynas, Paul Roberts and many of Nasheed’s aides are reporting on the Maldives but their views are biased and fail to give any contextual analysis of the political reality of the Maldives. In one sense their bias is understandable as they work for Nasheed, but what I cannot accept and find disgraceful is that they fail to see or report their own biases; calling themselves reporters or advisors to the Maldives and telling half-truths to the international media.

I wonder how Western countries would react if their elected leader ordered the army to take hold of the Supreme Court, ordered the arrest of several opponents, and then arrested a senior judge and kept him detained for over 2 weeks despite continuous protests. Anywhere else in this world this would be considered outrageous, authoritarian and unconstitutional, and there would be international calls for their immediate resignation. There were calls for Bill Clinton’s resignation over a lie about an extramarital affair!

Let me make two things clear to anyone reading this:

1-      The Maldives is a Muslim country and religion has been used as a tool by both political sides on various occasions. When Nasheed says President Waheed and allies are empowering radical religious groups, do not be fooled. That is just one of the cards played to create polarisation and gain Western media attention, when in reality MDP themselves formed an alliance with the religious groups when they came to power. Yes, we do have a problem with religious extremism, but that is not the issue at the heart of this political unrest.

2-      Not every critic of Nasheed’s leadership and his party is a remnant of the past regime; not every remnant of the past regime is an opponent; and not every opponent is a bad advisor.  

Few good things have come out of this whole political mess, but I was pleased to see the further empowerment of Maldivian women through this process, namely the MDP women’s peaceful protests. Any event or activity that empowers Maldivian women is a step forward and it was nice to see women take part in the democratic process, regardless of what side they were on. Women from all parties are clearly making their voices heard and when and if this political madness calms down I hope this spirit continues among Maldivian women. I was also pleased to see youth groups calling for peace through social media and organised events. Most importantly, I hope Nasheed’s overthrow sends a strong message to everyone that this country belongs to us all and that it will never be ruled by taking the law into one’s own hands. It is time we base our democracy on progressive policies instead of personalities.   

Nascent, our democracy maybe, but I take comfort in the fact that we are all still fighting for democratic ideals. I just hope we don’t destroy our beautiful country in the process.

When President Nasheed won the presidential election in 2008 one of my great expectations from him was to eliminate the high level of corruption in the Maldives. His campaign slogans targeting the rampant nepotism and cronyism in the country engendered by three decades of authoritarian rule gave hope to thousands of people and many thought a new Maldives was on the horizon.

Unfortunately, we were badly fooled. According to Transparency International’s Corruption Perception Index, in 2007 the Maldives ranked 84^th in the world, but by 2011 we ranked just 134^th, below Thailand and Colombia. It appears that the new government has not learned any lessons from the past and their actions have failed to meet their promises. Nepotism (favouritism shown on the basis of family relations) and cronyism (favouritism shown on the basis of close friendship) are widespread in the top tier of the government.

In 2009, Raajje News Blog produced a list of the links between various Government officials and others in positions of power, highlighting the huge levels of nepotism and cronyism within the top tiers of the Maldives Government. I have updated and revised this list, below, and intend to disseminate it as widely as possible to highlight how widespread corruption in the Maldives is, and the level of indignity with which our politicians continue to practice corruption:

1. Mohamed Aslam, the current Minister of Housing and Environment, is married to Aishath Rameeza, who is the daughter of President Nasheed’s second cousin (Naseema).

2. Ahmed Assad, the younger brother of Mohamed Aslam (the current Housing and Environment Minister), was appointed as Minister for Finance and Treasury and was later appointed as the Financial Controller. Assad resigned from this role in November 2011.

3. Minister of Health and Family, Dr. Aminath Jameel, is married to Sikka Mohamed Ismail Maniku (Kuda Sikka), whose elder brother, Sikka Ahmed Ismail Maniku (Bodu Sikka), is married to President Nasheed’s aunt.

4. President Nasheed’s close friend, DIK Ali Hashim, was appointed as the Finance Minister, but resigned following the ‘en mass cabinet resignation’ in June 2010. His reappointment was rejected by Parliament.

5. Former Finance Minister DIK Ali Hashim’s business partner, Mahmood Razee, is the current Minister of Economic Development.

6. President Nasheed’s father is second cousin to ‘Kerafa’ Ahmed Naseem, the current Minister of Foreign Affairs.

7. President Nasheed’s classmate and close friend Dr. Hussain Rasheed Hassan is the current Minister of State for Fisheries and Agriculture.

8. President Nasheed’s classmate and close friend, Uz Abdulla Muizzu, is the current Attorney General. Muizzu is also a member of the Judicial Service Commission of the Maldives.

9. President Nasheed’s classmate and close friend, Husnu Suood, was appointed as an Attorney General in June 2009 (resigned in August 2010) and was also the presidential nominee for Chief Justice in 2010. Suood is also a long time business partner of current Attorney General Abdulla Muizzu.

10. Husnu Suood’s brother-in-law is the Minister of Islamic Affairs Dr. Abdul Majeed Abdul Bari.

11. President Nasheed’s nominee for the vacant position of Speaker of Parliament in 2009 was his cousin Fazna Ahmed’s husband, Ibrahim Mohamed Solih. Solih is the MDP MP for Lhaviyani Hinnavaru and is considered a close friend and classmate of President Nasheed. Fazna’s father is Bodu Sikka (see point 3).

12. Niyaz Solih, Deputy State Minister for Medhu Uthuru Province, is the younger brother of MP Ibrahim Mohamed Solih’s (see point 11).

13. Ibrahim Mohamed Solih’s (see points 11 and 12) election campaign manager, Mohamed Mahir, is Counsellor for Lhaviyani Atoll.

14. President Nasheed’s cousin, Eva Abdulla (his aunt Zuheyra’s daughter), is MDP MP for Galolhu constituency.

15. MPD MP Eva Abdulla’s husband, Ahmed ‘Saabe’ Shahid, was the interim Deputy Chair of the Elections Commission until March 2009. Saabe and Mohamed Aslam (see point 1) are business partners. Saabe is also a senior member of MDP and, as of November 2011, is facing corruption charges from ACC.

16. President Nasheed’s uncle by marriage, Dheyliage Abdulla Mohamed (and MP Eva Abdulla’s father), is the older brother of Rugiyya Mohamed, who is MDP MP for Vaavu Atoll. Dheyliage Abdulla Mohamed is also MDP MP Ibrahim Mohamed Solih’s cousin.

17. MDP MP Rugiyya Mohamed’s husband, Thoyyib Mohamed Waheed, is Minister of State for Tourism, Arts and Culture. Thoyyib grew up in President Nasheed’s aunt’s household, Dheeframaage.

18. Dheyliage Abdulla Mohamed’s (see point 16) second wife’s brother, Maizan Adam Maniku, was former State Minister for Housing, Infrastructure and Transport.

19. President Nasheed’s class mate and close friend, Ali Shiyam, is the Economic Advisor to the President.

20. Ali Shiyam’s brother, Ahmed Hamza, was President Nasheed’s nominee for Deputy Speaker of Parliament.

21. Ali Shiyam’s brother, Jihad, was MDP candidate for Faafu Nilandhoo constituency.

22. Dr. Ahmed Shaheed, the former Ministry of Foreign Affairs, is the former brother-in-law of former MDP chairperson and prominent leader of ruling MDP, Mariya Ahmed Didi. Dr. Ahmed Shaheed was formerly married to Ashiya Ahmed Didi.

23. MDP MP Mariya Ahmed Didi’s sister, Haula Ahmed Didi, is the Deputy Foreign Minister.

24. MDP MP Mariya Ahmed Didi’s sister, Rugiyya Ahmed Didi, is the Deputy Under Secretary at the President’s Office.

25. Rugiyya Ahmed Didi’s ex-husband, Umaru Jamaal, is the Minister of State for Upper South Province. Umar Jamaal was convicted for his involvement in the November 1988 coup.

26. MDP Mariya Ahmed Didi’s brother-in-law, Ahmed Latheef (married to Fazeena Ahmed Didi), is the Maldivian Ambassador to China.

27. MDP MP Mariya Ahmed Didi’s nephew (Ahmed Latheef’s and Fazeena’s son) Mifzal Ahmed, is Advisor on Investments for the Ministry of Economic Development. Mifzal is the Managing Director of Mega Maldives Pvt. Ltd. – the international airline of the Maldives opened in 2010, with many routes between China and Maldives. Note: Mifzal’s father is the Maldivian Ambassador in China.

28. MDP MP Mariya Ahmed Didi’s sister Fazeena’s brother-in-law, Hassan Latheef, is the Minster of Human Resources, Youth & Sports.

29. MDP MP Mariya Ahmed Didi’s sister-in-law, Dr. Farahanaaz Faizal, is the Maldivian High Commissioner to the UK.

30. Dr. Farahanaaz Faizal’s brother, Ameen Faisal, is the former Defence Minister (resigned in the ‘en mass cabinet resignation’ in June 2010 and his reappointment was rejected by the Parliament). He is currently the National Security Advisor to the President and has been nominated by the President for the post of Ambassador to India.

31. Dr. Farahanaaz Faizal’s sister, Aishath Shuwaikar, is the Deputy Under Secretary of the President’s Office.

32. Aishath Shuwaikar’s husband, Ahmed Rasheed, is the Chief of Protocol.

I am sure some of these people are qualified for their jobs but the level of power shared amongst a few elite groups is undeniably shameful and disgusting, especially given the fact they their claim to power was on the promise of eradicating corruption within our country. One can argue that this level of connection could be because the Maldives is a small community and ‘everyone is related to everyone else’, but as a Maldivian I can tell you that the familial power sharing I witness today in the Maldives is of a different scale to any ‘family-ties’ that operates amongst ordinary Maldivians, yet we do nothing about it. Power is passed amongst these traditional power blocs as if it is a family heirloom!

Count how many of these people own resorts or have shares in resorts. Remember how many of these people held positions of power in the previous regime. Think how many of these people have won bids for businesses, land or resorts. Many of these very same people ate from Maumoon’s plate not so long ago and reaped all the benefits during his regime (E.g. Mariyam Ahmed Didi and Dr. Shaheed). They have all switched to President Nasheed’s club for the time being, and when the time comes I predict they will switch back to the next popular regime. We can already see this happening because many politicians are already switching back to DRP or PPM for the 2013 elections! The very people that President Nasheed has surrounded himself with will be the downfall of what could have been a truly remarkable presidency.

I don’t have any affiliation with this regime or the former. Entire generations of ordinary Maldivians are the victims of these power-hungry, money-grabbing, opportunistic politicians who have amassed the nation’s wealth for personal gain over countless generations! Let us hope that in the next elections and in the next government there will be more transparency, fairness and less corruption.

Ps: If some of the information on the list are outdated or inaccurate please feel free to correct me!