The term ladheenee is by far the most irritating tagline used in Maldivian politics at the moment. Ladheenee, meaning un-Islamic, irreligious or secularist (depending on the context), was popularised during the pre-2008 campaigns to ‘de-throne’ Gayyoom and more recently it has been used to delegitimize Nasheed’s administration in the run up to February 7^th 2012. The religious hooligans in the country, led by Adhaalath Party, are the main protagonists in the on-going religious strife in the country, defining ladheenee as it best fits their agenda and interests; and using Islam as a tool to delegitimize its opponents.

Adhaalath Party, ultra-conservative and extreme in their views, surfaced into Maldivian politics in 2005 using the liberties granted by what they call ‘dheenmugura’ or what we call democracy. Back in the Gayyoom days, whilst some people were genuinely fighting for civil liberties, Adhaalath Party hopped on to the democracy bandwagon to spread their ultra-conservative religious agenda into mainstream politics. This agenda was partially based on characterising opponents according to what they perceive as Islamic and un-Islamic. Calling themselves ‘dhanna beykalun’ (meaning: know-it-alls) they began a campaign to rile up a country that was practicing Islam peacefully for 800 years.

 On 22^nd September 2008, 44 religious scholars, of whom a large majority were from Adhaalath Party, released a statement against Gayyoom, criticizing him for advocating secular and ladheenee ideas.  Gayyoom’s stance against death penalty, compulsory veiling and attempts to control religious extremism earned him the label ‘ladheenee apostate’ by the religious conservatives. In the run up to the election in 2008, Adhaalath Party leaders were crying on podiums and begging the country to free themselves of Gayyoom.

Three years down the line, how mighty the tides have changed.

Adhaalath Party still exists, but the Gayyoom they judged as a ‘ladheenee apostate’ has become their current political guru. Almost all of the 44 religious scholars that released the statement against Gayyoom in 2008 now belong to Gayyoom’s party, Progressive People’s Party (PPM). And the man they rallied support for in 2008, Mohamed Nasheed is now labelled as the ‘ladheenee apostate’.

For Adhaalath Party, being put in charge of their own ministry to spread their venom did not suffice. School children’s singing competition was ladheenee. Celebrating New Year’s Eve was ladheenee. The tomb of Abul Barakaat Yusuf al-Barbari was ladheenee. The democratic ideals that empowered them to open their big mouths also became ladheenee.  In short, the whole world except the Wahhabi clan in Saudi Arabia became ‘ladheenee’.  However, much to their disappointment their targeted audience was not too receptive to their ridiculous callings.

Nasheed’s administration became the obvious target to direct their religious frustrations and what better way to rile up anti-government support than to use Islam. They had already experienced success with this political tactic in 2008. By making people feel as if their religious identity was under threat, together with the backing of power-hungry politicians, a movement to remove President Nasheed developed.  And this, they did very well - with public statements, tears on podiums, brotherly love developed in the name of Islam, protests and of course who can forget the melodramatic 23^rd December Ithihaad! As I have said before, some of the criticism directed towards Nasheed’s administration was well-deserved; but religious fanatics used this as an impetus to create an anti-Islamic conspiracy around President Nasheed. This drama unfolded with President Nasheed being ousted on 7^th February 2012 and now, guess who has two seats in the current cabinet?

Clearly their ladheenee gibberish worked its magic because as fools we have begun to characterise politician’s behaviour according to the Adhaalath-endorsed ladheenee scale. The irony is that a lot of people that now use the term ‘ladheenee’ are liberal advocates, only using the term in an attempt to mock the current regime. When President Waheed attended a church service in honour of the Queen’s diamond jubilee, his opponents (including liberal advocates such as Dr. Farahanaz Faisal) criticised his attendance purely for spite. If she was invited I’m sure she would have attended as well but obviously the opportunity to point his ladheenee behaviour was too good. The ‘Bon Aqua incident of hand holding with a strange woman’ by Sheikh Shaheem, a photograph of President Waheed and his wife in front of a temple, the recent video of President Waheed’s daughter speaking at a conference about a ‘Dark Mother God’ and the hiring of a foreign women as a legal consultant by the current regime are examples labelled and popularised on social media by the liberals as ‘ladheenee’. People do this for fun, to mock and scapegoat, to spite and out of anger, but who wins in the end?

The whole basis of me writing this piece is because I wanted to highlight the repercussions of the continuous moral categorisation and judgement of individual behaviour for which ever reason.  

Firstly, by calling people ladheenee and supporting the accusations of our so-called religious scholars we are empowering them. When President Waheed attended the church service many tweets were directed towards Sheikh Shaheem asking his opinion, obviously in sarcasm. My view is that if you make mullahs feel as if their gibberish matters and their opinions count, they will act as if they have a moral authority over people (even if no one is listening!). It makes them feel important.

Secondly, the continuous use of the term ‘ladheenee’ sends the wrong message to young people. If both the religious conservatives and the liberals in the country continuously pick on each other’s behaviour and label each other for mockery or for religious reasons, young people read and dwell in an environment where intolerance is emphasized. How can we create an inclusive culture and teach our children to respect equality and diversity if we continue to morally police each other? The political unrest in the country is not hidden from young people and the language we use will be emulated by them. Furthermore, it may make young people fearful of doing entirely normal things or fearful of questioning anything because they may be deemed ladheenee.

Finally, calling each other ladheenee and pointing fingers will never let us be in peace. Sensationalising each other’s private lives or every action to show whose the worst ladheenee is petty and a waste of time - time we could spend to try and resolve our differences. The current political mess we are in is not some high school drama – remember that every action has a repercussion which shapes the stability of this country.

Enough said, shall we stop with the ladheenee talk!

The Maldives is probably one of the most faithful supporters of Palestine, and our relationship with the people of Palestine goes beyond diplomacy. Maldivians see Palestinians as their ‘Muslim brothers and sisters’ and as long as I can remember there has always been a prayer for the people of Palestine included in our Friday sermons. We have vowed to ‘stand shoulder to shoulder with Palestine’ in its bid to gain full membership at the UN and it would not be an exaggeration to say that our loyalty to Palestine has become part of our national psyche. Similar to the Anglo-American ‘special relationship’, we seem to believe that there is a ‘special relationship’ between the Maldives and Palestine based on brotherhood, respect and just cause.

A good friend of mine, who is also a prominent Palestinian activist, was pleasantly surprised to hear about the love and prayers Maldivians have been sending to Palestinians for decades, all the way from our tiny islands. But little does she know how our relationship in support of Palestine plays a crucial role in Maldivian politics, or that in our land, the Arab-Israel conflict is used as a tool to rile up emotions by politicians and religious scholars. My worry is that little do we know that our love for Palestine is inadvertently crossing into racism at times.

More recently the term anti-Semitic (hatred of Jews) has been used in association with our country and I find this extremely shameful. This association is mainly due to the folly of our politicians and the actions of religious fundamentalists in the Maldives, in their drive to gain moral authority over each other. But the fact that our name is written in the same sentence as anti-Semitism today is a disgrace and begs the important question, are Maldivians really anti-Semitic? After much thinking, my answer to this question is no. There is recent evidence to counter my answer, but I believe Maldivians are essentially not anti-Semitic. Ignorant and misinformed some of us may be, but we are not as a nation anti-Semitic. When I say this I am not speaking on behalf of the minority of brainwashed religious mullahs in the Maldives, but on behalf of ordinary Maldivians. If I ask my mother what her views of Israel are, she would say that she hates Israel for the suffering of Palestinians. This answer stems from a longstanding loyalty to Palestinians and Muslims and not because of a deep-entrenched hatred of Jews.

Dislike of Israel is not equal to anti-Semitism; people are allowed to scrutinize and dislike the state of Israel for the countless atrocities they have committed against the people of Palestine, and many western organisations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch are critical of Israeli war crimes and discrimination against Palestinians. Since 2003 the UN has passed 232 resolutions with respect to Israel, of which a large majority are very critical of Israel. Their criticism is not considered anti-Semitic. Equally, our continuous support of the Palestinian cause should not be considered anti-Semitic.

Having said that, how do we explain the common use of language such as ‘yahoodhi kaleyge’ when we insult a person, or our tolerance of anti-Jewish slurs by our religious scholars? If the country is being perceived as anti-Semitic because of the actions and words of some Maldivians, it is important that we ask ourselves why this is the case. Has our support for Palestinians unfortunately laid the foundations for hatred towards Israelis and Jews? If Maldivians have any anti-Jewish tendencies, it is because our religious upbringing required us to look at Jews differently using religious justifications, and because our education system limits us to knowledge of Islamic and Maldivian history. I am sure there are many Maldivians who to this day would not have heard of the Holocaust or the fact that not all Israelis are Jewish! I am tired of listening to rhetoric and sermons by political and religious morons who are incapable of understanding the difference between racism and diplomatic support for Palestine. We have tolerated the indoctrination of our children with subjective and wrongful interpretations of Islam by bigoted so-called religious scholars for too long!

After more than 50 years of conflict, today most people recognise that the state of Israel has a right to exist (even Yasser Arafat accepted UN Security Council Resolution 242 in 1988!) as much as Palestine. As a small nation state we need to remember that such conflicts are controlled by forces way beyond our influence and status, and the only thing we can do is support Palestine in spirit and by diplomatic means. But this support should not be on the basis of hating Jews. The Arab-Israeli conflict should not be a cause for us to degrade ourselves and be viewed as anti-Semitic. As importantly, it should not be cause for us to squabble mindlessly amongst ourselves over which party supports Palestine more!

Similar to Western countries that impose sanctions or halt all diplomatic ties where they find injustice and violence, many Muslim countries refuse to establish diplomatic ties with Israel because they find Israel ‘aggressive and oppressive’ in the Arab-Israel conflict. There are also some Muslim countries that maintain diplomatic relations with Israel, such as Egypt, Turkey and Jordan. Historically the Maldives has chosen to reject diplomatic ties with Israel but it does not mean it has to be this way forever. We should be able to discuss this issue in the Parliament or any forum as responsible citizens without resorting to racism. Whatever our government chooses to do, it should represent the views of the people and it certainly should not be a cause for conflict amongst ourselves.

I am a firm supporter of Palestine’s right to self-determination and have actively joined pro-Palestinian demonstrations in the past, whilst some of the most wonderful people I have met abroad are Jewish. Having grown up in the Maldives, the experience of meeting people from various cultures, discussing this very conflict together with Palestinians and Jews and the exposure to a range of literature abroad have made me reassess my own preconceptions. I am sure the new generation of educated Maldivians have had similar experiences to my own and see the world through a different lens to the older generations. We should wholeheartedly support Palestine in every way, but we should do it the right way. If the chosen way of showing solidarity with Palestine is refusal to establish any diplomatic ties with Israel similar to the majority of Muslim countries, so be it. But neither religion nor a deep sense of loyalty to Palestine should be reason for us to preach and teach hatred towards any person of any faith, race and political affiliation. We are better than that.

Two months after the coup we are still at a deadlock and many of us are still coming to terms with the events that proceeded 7^th February 2012. Political rivalry continues to be fierce, with protests, party swaps, statement after statement by political groups and a few people who cannot grasp democratic politics resorting to violence.  IMF, MATI and a number of economists are warning of economic collapse. Meanwhile, the current government is busy leasing resorts for 50 years, giving out mass promotions to police officers, changing working hours, visiting Laamu Gaadhoo for the first time in 30 years – all very useful functions in a politically stable environment. Unfortunately none of these actions do anything to reduce public disillusionment with the current political crisis. So where do we go from here?  

Here is a non-exhaustive list of actions that we need to undertake to get us out of our political predicament.

1-      First thing first – Establish the credibility of the Commission of National Inquiry assigned to find facts/truth about the legitimacy of transfer of power on 7^th February 2012.

It is integral that this inquiry committee appoints an international observer, or better, an international participant. If a large portion of the general population question the integrity and credibility of this committee there is no point of having an inquiry, regardless of whether or not it is actually credible. Apart from finding facts, the onus of this inquiry should also be to remove public uncertainty and disaffection over the legitimacy of the transfer of power and of those that rule the country at the moment. Clearly the MDP supporters and many others already question the committee’s credibility and one of the primary stakeholders in the transfer of power, MDP, refuse to accept the inquiry committee at all because of a lack of international, impartial presence associated with the committee. In this situation, is it not wise to appoint an international participant in order to appease all actors involved and make their inquiry impartial in the eyes of their targeted audience? Otherwise it is a wasted effort. Furthermore, the mandate of this committee should not only be to lay out facts but also to lay out recommendations and a follow-up plan of activities to promote its findings and to advocate its recommendations.

2-      Laying the groundwork for the next election. The inquiry committee will submit a full report of their findings to the President, Prosecutor General and Attorney General on 31^st May 2012.  Whether the transfer of power is found to be legal or illegal, the important question is ‘what happens next?’ Regardless of the conclusions of the inquiry committee, in my opinion (similar to many Maldivians and international bodies) the only way to move forward within the country would be to hold an election in the near future to settle this conflict. Azima Shukoor (Attorney General) and Dhunya Maumoon (Minister of State for Foreign Affairs) state that a free and fair election cannot be held without strengthening the state institutions such as the judiciary, election commission and the human rights commission – makes sense! But they keep saying this over and over again without stating what they plan to do to strengthen these institutions or to overcome these institutional roadblocks to make an election possible. To me it appears that they are just saying this for the sake of it without any ingenuity.  Whilst some may argue that it is under these very same institutions that the local council (2011), parliamentary (2009) and the presidential elections (2008) took place, we have to admit that the circumstances have changed since these elections and the country is at a political juncture which requires rethink and reformation at all levels.

Even if we don’t have an early election, the next impending election, according to the current constitution, is not too far away (October 2013), so should we not get ready for an election now and make it a priority to make the necessary reforms to strengthen these institutions, starting from now? If these state institutions are so weak and unreliable why are they being used for any other state purpose without making the much needed reforms as soon as possible? The current government and parliament should stop making excuses and start making the necessary institutional amendments to ensure that the next election, be it an early one or as scheduled, is possible and fair.

If the constitution needs to be amended, this is only possible through the parliament and all MPs should work within the walls of the parliament to allow the legal changes needed to guarantee the rights and institutional framework required for a free and fair election. The government needs to ensure that members of the election commission are educated and trained in order to ensure their conduct is impartial, neutral and balanced at all times. The political parties and the media should accept and adopt a code of conduct to govern the election campaign and the polling period. The government should ensure that all parties have equal access to state media and the state media should provide non-partisan media coverage.

3-      Reform, reform and reform the Judiciary. The judiciary of our country is a disgrace and none of us rely on the courts to provide justice for any crime. The judiciary is infamous for its corruption; many of our judges in the lower court are under-qualified and their integrity and impartiality is highly questionable; and politicians have their claws all over the judiciary. Worst of all for me is that some judges in the lower court even have previous criminal convictions! I am not a legal expert and I am sure our country has brilliant lawmakers (e.g. Kutti Nasheed) to reform our judiciary. We need a group of non-partisan lawyers to create a public document of various legal reforms that could be undertaken to strengthen our judiciary and promote this wherever possible.  Every time there is a political crisis, talk of judiciary reform alights, but this always slips off the public radar soon afterwards. The public and the country’s legal experts need to keep this pressure loud and ongoing.

4-      Reforms within the security forces. We all know that whichever way the Police Integrity Commission (PIC) concludes their investigations, there is a need to change police conduct. The PIC investigation should find a number of incidents of police brutality (including use of excessive force, violent attacks and intimidation) and so on, but the top tier of the security forces needs to recognise that their misconduct is also very much due to the systematic failure of the authorities of MPS and MNDF to steer off political influence, keep appropriate checks and educate and democratise police officers. PC Riyaz’s Q & A on Minivan News encourages me.

5-      The current leader of our crisis government, President Waheed, is not really helping himself or his government, as he continues to make the same mistakes Nasheed did. Mr. President: listen to your critics and respond to the plight of the people you serve. Even if you can argue that technically your position is legitimate you have to admit that you are not in that position by popular vote. You cannot win the hearts of disaffected people by giving ministerial positions to Gayyoom’s children, especially given our political history, even if they are the most qualified for the job. I have not heard you forcefully condemn police brutality or show any empathy towards the disillusioned portion of the population. Remember when you campaigned to release Nasheed from prison in the ‘black ribbon campaign’ and when you stood against oppressors not so long ago!  Using your many years of experience working in complex post-conflict zones, I hope your conscience allows you to make compromises and make decisions that help to diffuse this conflict, rather than aggravating it.

6-      Nasheed needs to go to the table to negotiate and try to solve the political crisis with Maldivians, not his foreign ‘friends’. Nasheed’s recent interviews in the US showcased his personable character but also his political naivety. If he wishes to continue promoting The Island President, he should do sowithout defaming a country that earns its bread from its image!

7-      Setting the right priorities - Before investigating the arrest of Judge Abdulla Mohamed, we need to take a step back and investigate why he was arrested in the first place. Investigate the allegations against him separately from the wider political investigations and problems.

8-      Don’t put the cart before the horse. As a society we are more politically aware than ever before but not necessarily more responsible. We cannot make any progress by putting the cart before the horse. We shout for democracy without ridding ourselves of old patronage and alliances, and without respecting human rights. We call for snap elections whilst knowing that the current institutional framework needs changes. We demand things without looking at how we are actually going to get them.

We will only be in peace by finding long term solutions to our political problems. We can only be at peace if we develop a framework and a mentality which allows democracy to truly flourish in our country. These are my thoughts and there is more to add here. Please feel free to share your solution based thoughts.

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!

Even as I write this there is a battle on the streets of Male’ between protesters and policemen – both fighting to be the master of our streets and adamant that they are doing their duty to this country. Whilst the police stand with their riot gear and weapons, protesters stand with their placards and unusual weapons, ranging from verbal abuse to bricks. What they both have in common is strong will (stubbornness!), self-belief that they are doing this for the good of this country and an inability to comprehend their role in the invocation of violence and fear in this country. I ask them, for whose benefit are they doing this?

Democracy, religion, human rights, ‘my vote’ and ‘justice’ – these are some of the justifications used by the protesters for their protests. Duty, ‘protection of civilians’, public order, ‘honour’, ‘self-defence’ are some of the justification used by the security forces for their ruthless tactics. But what are they really fighting each other for? Are they fighting for the ordinary man? Are they fighting for our right to live free from fear, intimidation and violence? Are they serving the best interests of our economy, stability and the social fabric of our country?

I believe it is power which lies at the core of this battle between the protesters and the police. It is really a proxy battle between politicians. The greed for power, the need to have control of power and the need to protect the power of the elite politicians is what the police and protesters are, by proxy, fighting for. Hiding behind police forces and protest groups, it is politicians that are really running this show. If the political leaders of this country, opposition groups or MDP genuinely want to cooperate they need to let go of their stubbornness and self-interest to bring a lasting resolution to the political crisis currently plaguing our country.

I have defended the police on many occasions and tried to look at the current situation from their perspective. Our leaders have politicised the police and have made it impossible for them to remain impartial and apolitical. They are very much the pawns used between our politicians for their political game and they have evolved from a respected police force to a feared and hated group. People no longer know who they can trust for their safety and protection and have turned to their political parties, gangs and other networks for protection.

I find MDP’s hate campaign and indiscriminate attacks on members of the police force despicable, BUT that does not justify their disproportionate use of violence on protesters, MDP or other. Here I am not criticising the police’s standard crowd dispersion tactics; I am criticising about brutal beatings of protesters in broad daylight. Never have the police apologised to the public for brutal attacks on protesters on 8^th February. Not a single word of apology. I appreciate that they are still ‘investigating’ the brutal attacks by some members of the police force but the videos of men dressed in police uniforms beating citizens in various locations of Male’ is proof enough for a blind man to see that wrong was done by the police on 8^th February. Even a half-hearted apology would have maintained some public respect for them. I am disappointed in the police and the current government for failing to criticize and act where it is needed. I am disappointed that as I write this, police are continuing to clash with protesters and vigilantes in the middle of the night!

The current situation has put the police in a very difficult position. They are asked to serve a crisis government and maintain the status quo of the government, and at the same time defend themselves from public (mainly MDP and other street thug) attacks. We ask the police to remain impartial and apolitical but we are forcing them to choose a side. The more MDP supporters directly and indirectly provoke public animosity towards the police the more it will propel the police to have an ‘us vs. them’ mentality. Which side do you think they will choose for their own protection? Similarly, if the current government continues to hide behind the police and refuse to provide amicable solutions to the current situation, the public animosity towards the police will increase. Both sides are militarising, politicizing and separating the police from the rest of society.

As a solution to this current ‘police dilemma’, perhaps the police could start with an apology to the victims of the violence; make those who are responsible for the individual acts of violent behaviour accountable for their actions; create and make available some detailed guidelines for public assembly so that people are aware of their rights and their boundaries; and most importantly, reform and restart a campaign for better conduct and to gain public trust.

The sight of protests has become a daily part of our lives now and some Maldivian protests can be quite moving and fun spirited. However, there are some who use organised protests to create panic, and incite violence and further animosity in the Maldives. In a similar vein, I ask MDP leaders whether they will apologise to the victims of their supporters’ violence and take some responsibility for the violence perpetrated in the name of their party? If you denounce violence you have to denounce violence wholeheartedly from all sides, regardless of the motive. It is very easy to play the victim when you are overpowered and beaten; and I often find ‘victim’ videos of MDP protesters being hosed, man-handled, beaten or fighting with police officers. But these videos or pictures only capture the moment of their victimisation, without pretext or the protesters’ own role in the provocation of violence. In addition, whenever any video or photos show that violence was perpetrated by someone associated with MDP, MDP followers are very quick to deny and claim that the perpetrator was an unknown civilian, PPM supporter or policeman in disguise. Is this a tactic used to avoid responsibility for any negative consequences of their actions or gain public sympathy?

Violence is violence regardless of who commits it and I believe MDP can play a crucial role in preventing the on-going street violence in the country. I can show a hundred tweets, facebook messages and internet messages of MDP affiliated groups which send out instant, live messages to rile up protesters and create fear and animosity between protesters and the police. I am aware that more often than not, it is MDP vigilantes who are causing this violence and I am certain most protesters are out there for a genuine purpose. But playing the victim card does not always gain public sympathy if MDP members do not take some responsibility for the on-going conflicts in the streets.

MDP leaders should play a bigger role in diffusing this conflict by vehemently calling on the hundreds of people that go out in their name to protest peacefully; and by strongly condemning the destruction of public property and violent acts that have been perpetrated by the their supporters. That is what a good and responsible leadership is supposed to do. That is how you win the peoples’ respect.

I ask MDP leaders if they could be the bigger men (and women) if possible and lead by example? Is it too much to ask if they could return to the table to resolve this crisis which is scarring a generation of our nation? This might in fact tip the scale in their favour and win over the thousands of people who are in the centre of the battle between your protesters and the police.

As a final thought to both the police and the protesters, remember that when you beat that protester you are beating the ordinary man and when you hurl that brick or abuse at a police officer you are hurting the ordinary man. It is the ordinary man that needs to be protected and served. Our nation bleeds today because of both side’s stubbornness and inability to look beyond their differences. If we continue to hurl bricks and charge at each other, soon there will be no democracy to uphold, no civilians to protect and no country to save.

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.