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!

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.

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!

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.