The Royal Society in England runs a very interesting program called the MP Scientist Pairing Scheme. According to the program website (http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=6998) it aims to "build bridges between some of the best research workers in the country and members of the UK parliament". Under the program a scientist and an MP is paired and involves them attending workshops and seminars on each others work. Most importantly it includes reciprocal visits whereby the scientist visits the MPs office and attends meetings on local issues and the MP in return visit and spend a day in the facilities where the scientist is based.
Wouldn't this be a great idea for us?
Throughout the years, several commentators have identified that the gap between constituents and MPs are widening in the Maldives. Various constituents regularly say that their MP's are out of touch!
As a small solution, why not device an MP-Constituent Pairing Scheme? The MP will spend a working day (not a relaxing weekend) with a constituent at his work place whereever that may be and help him and contribute to his work. In return the constituent will visit the MP for a day in Male' and attend which ever parliamentary sessions or meetings that the MP may attend.
Not only will such a scheme assist in 'bridging the gap' but will also help MPs and constituents understand each other better. The reality is that there is a vast different in the lifestyle and quality of life herein Male', where MPs are based and in the outer regions. Such a scheme would make the MPs more empathetic towards the plight of their constituents and perhaps also give a chance for MP's to justify the massive salaries and benefits that 'they give themselves'
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Thoughts on a mid term election
One of the more interesting campaign promises made by HEP Nasheed is the promise of a mid term election if he wins. A mid term elections - it was argued would give the people the opportunity to participate in a free and fair elections.
At that time, DRP said on several occasions that a mid term election is unconstitutional although now that the table has turned, I am certain they would strongly advocate for Nasheed to keep to his promise.
First, is a mid term election unconstitutional? Clause 125 of the Constitution specifically provides for a situation where the President and his Vice President resign their positions - in which case it states that an election should be held. Therefore, without going into further details; it is a simple rebuttal for the argument that a mid term election would be unconstitutional.
Second and more importantly should Nasheed call for a mid-term election?
The reason given at that time was that (as mentioned above) - it would give us the opportunity to vote in a free and fair election. It was based on the premise that the October elections would not be free and fair. I think it would be very difficult for anyone to argue now, that the election was in fact not free and fair.
All parties who contested have accepted the results and several observers both local and international have endorsed the election as free and fair. True, there were various issues including missing persons in the voter lists, duplication etc. But I do not believe and neither would any sensible person believe that it would have changed the outcome of the results. During the American elections, we heard news stories of people registering their pets in the voter lists, Obama spelt as Osama in some of the postal ballots and even incidents where cartoon characters were on the list. Nevertheless no one is contesting the validity and the outcome of the election.
My point is that it will be impossible to negate human error. Even with the time that the Elections Commission has to rectify issues with the lists, no doubt there would be issues in the upcoming parliamentary elections.
Having said that, I firmly believe that for the most part, the October election was free and fair and any incidents which ever may have happened, would not have changed the outcome of the election.
If we accept that there was a free and fair elections; do we need another mid term election just to 'give the people the opportunity to vote in a free and fair election'?
Further, what we now need is consistency, stability and certainty. I certainly do not want the government to spend another 50 million for another election when it could be spent on projects that are in much need for funds. Also, holding an election would put us all in another spell of uncertainty where business would be less willing to invest and banks less willing to finance. This is something we cannot afford right now.
True, it is a campaign promise that Nasheed made and no doubt some people would have voted for him because of that. But should he do it just because he made the promise or should he do what is best for the country as a whole?
It was widely rumored that one faction of the alliance pushed hard for the election promise. If it is true, they would certainly not be happy if the idea is scrapped. I think Nasheed should take a decision that would benefit the country as a whole rather than do it just because he made a campaign promise.
I for one, would certainly be against a decision to hold mid term elections.
At that time, DRP said on several occasions that a mid term election is unconstitutional although now that the table has turned, I am certain they would strongly advocate for Nasheed to keep to his promise.
First, is a mid term election unconstitutional? Clause 125 of the Constitution specifically provides for a situation where the President and his Vice President resign their positions - in which case it states that an election should be held. Therefore, without going into further details; it is a simple rebuttal for the argument that a mid term election would be unconstitutional.
Second and more importantly should Nasheed call for a mid-term election?
The reason given at that time was that (as mentioned above) - it would give us the opportunity to vote in a free and fair election. It was based on the premise that the October elections would not be free and fair. I think it would be very difficult for anyone to argue now, that the election was in fact not free and fair.
All parties who contested have accepted the results and several observers both local and international have endorsed the election as free and fair. True, there were various issues including missing persons in the voter lists, duplication etc. But I do not believe and neither would any sensible person believe that it would have changed the outcome of the results. During the American elections, we heard news stories of people registering their pets in the voter lists, Obama spelt as Osama in some of the postal ballots and even incidents where cartoon characters were on the list. Nevertheless no one is contesting the validity and the outcome of the election.
My point is that it will be impossible to negate human error. Even with the time that the Elections Commission has to rectify issues with the lists, no doubt there would be issues in the upcoming parliamentary elections.
Having said that, I firmly believe that for the most part, the October election was free and fair and any incidents which ever may have happened, would not have changed the outcome of the election.
If we accept that there was a free and fair elections; do we need another mid term election just to 'give the people the opportunity to vote in a free and fair election'?
Further, what we now need is consistency, stability and certainty. I certainly do not want the government to spend another 50 million for another election when it could be spent on projects that are in much need for funds. Also, holding an election would put us all in another spell of uncertainty where business would be less willing to invest and banks less willing to finance. This is something we cannot afford right now.
True, it is a campaign promise that Nasheed made and no doubt some people would have voted for him because of that. But should he do it just because he made the promise or should he do what is best for the country as a whole?
It was widely rumored that one faction of the alliance pushed hard for the election promise. If it is true, they would certainly not be happy if the idea is scrapped. I think Nasheed should take a decision that would benefit the country as a whole rather than do it just because he made a campaign promise.
I for one, would certainly be against a decision to hold mid term elections.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Who is the head of the Maldives Police Service?
A few hours ago, it emerged (and is now reported on the police website) that Adam Zahir has resigned from his position as the Commissioner of Police upon being asked by HEP Nasheed to do so. This would not be a surprise to anyone and was very much expected.
It has also been reported that Ahmed Faseeh has been appointed the Inspector General of Police. His appointment was announced together with that of Brig. Moosa Jaleel who has been appointed as the Chief of Defense Force in replacement of Mohamed Zahir who I assume resigned in the same manner as Adam Zahir.
On the face of it, there seem to be no issues as it seemed that HEP Nasheed has appointed the two most senior officers to the two uniformed services.
However, on close inspection of the Police Act, it does not appear to do so.
Clause 52 (c) of the Police Act states that the most senior officer of the Police Service is the 'Commissioner of Police' and Clause 54 (c) of the same act provides that the Deputy Commissioner of Police is the second most senior officer of the Police Services.
Now that Adam Zahir has resigned, up until a new Commissioner of Police is appointed, the Deputy Commissioner of Police is by force of law, the most senior officer in the Police Service, and therefore by appointing Faseeh as the 'Inspector General of Police'- does not make him the head of the Police Force.
He has to be given the rank of Commissioner of Police for him to be the most senior officer in the Police Service under the Police Act.
UPDATE: Ahmed Faseeh has subsequently been appointed as the 'Commissioner of Police'. No issues now.
It has also been reported that Ahmed Faseeh has been appointed the Inspector General of Police. His appointment was announced together with that of Brig. Moosa Jaleel who has been appointed as the Chief of Defense Force in replacement of Mohamed Zahir who I assume resigned in the same manner as Adam Zahir.
On the face of it, there seem to be no issues as it seemed that HEP Nasheed has appointed the two most senior officers to the two uniformed services.
However, on close inspection of the Police Act, it does not appear to do so.
Clause 52 (c) of the Police Act states that the most senior officer of the Police Service is the 'Commissioner of Police' and Clause 54 (c) of the same act provides that the Deputy Commissioner of Police is the second most senior officer of the Police Services.
Now that Adam Zahir has resigned, up until a new Commissioner of Police is appointed, the Deputy Commissioner of Police is by force of law, the most senior officer in the Police Service, and therefore by appointing Faseeh as the 'Inspector General of Police'- does not make him the head of the Police Force.
He has to be given the rank of Commissioner of Police for him to be the most senior officer in the Police Service under the Police Act.
UPDATE: Ahmed Faseeh has subsequently been appointed as the 'Commissioner of Police'. No issues now.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Slim Government
One of the issues of the former government was its sheer size! With 20-odd ministries, a culture of creating positions for people rather than finding people for positions had been rampant. Needless to say it was a very unpopular policy within the young educated segment of the population.
When the structure of the new government was discussed, the fact that it had 14 government ministries was certainly a welcome change, although, I must note that it could have been even slimmer. Civil Aviation and Communication could have been absorbed into Transport (although the current transport, housing ministry is pretty big even as it is) and the fisheries and agriculture portfolio could have been absorbed into economic development. However, given the fact that its a mainstream industry that is connected with a large part of the population, the government might have made a political decision to keep a separate fisheries and agriculture ministry.
Hence, in that sense, it is all understandable - and then came the three state ministers!
I really don't see the fisheries and agriculture ministry being that huge a ministry. I agree that it is an area that can be really developed and it could produce a lot more output in the medium to long term if planned well. However, why does it need 3 state ministers? And that too in addition to the Minister, and the possible deputy minister(s) and the permanent secretary!
I really do hope that this is not setting a trend. When ministries become too 'top heavy' it tends to be unproductive. More importance has to be given to develop the civil service - to empower it so that policy decisions can be taken at cabinet level which would then be communicated/discussed by the Minister with the civil servants who would in turn implement them.
Further, such appointments would not score the government any political points either. Too many ministerial level positions would only create the suspicion that it is after all a policy where positions are created for various people and not the other way around. If that happens, then the positive side of the drastically cut down number of ministries might be overshadowed.
When the structure of the new government was discussed, the fact that it had 14 government ministries was certainly a welcome change, although, I must note that it could have been even slimmer. Civil Aviation and Communication could have been absorbed into Transport (although the current transport, housing ministry is pretty big even as it is) and the fisheries and agriculture portfolio could have been absorbed into economic development. However, given the fact that its a mainstream industry that is connected with a large part of the population, the government might have made a political decision to keep a separate fisheries and agriculture ministry.
Hence, in that sense, it is all understandable - and then came the three state ministers!
I really don't see the fisheries and agriculture ministry being that huge a ministry. I agree that it is an area that can be really developed and it could produce a lot more output in the medium to long term if planned well. However, why does it need 3 state ministers? And that too in addition to the Minister, and the possible deputy minister(s) and the permanent secretary!
I really do hope that this is not setting a trend. When ministries become too 'top heavy' it tends to be unproductive. More importance has to be given to develop the civil service - to empower it so that policy decisions can be taken at cabinet level which would then be communicated/discussed by the Minister with the civil servants who would in turn implement them.
Further, such appointments would not score the government any political points either. Too many ministerial level positions would only create the suspicion that it is after all a policy where positions are created for various people and not the other way around. If that happens, then the positive side of the drastically cut down number of ministries might be overshadowed.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
The first reception
I was just watching 'the first reception' on TV and I note the happy mood. Even Anni's body guard (sporting a yellow tie interestingly) was smiling - and it looked very genuine! You normally see them with a very serious look on their faces. Shows the true feelings I guess...
Monday, November 10, 2008
Rayyithunge Werikan
Rayyithunge Werikan
Originally uploaded by mshahdy
November 11, 2008. H.E Mohamed Nasheed sworn in as President of the Republic of Maldives.
The day belongs not to politicians but to the common man.
The Guardian Interview
I was mildly surprised when Anni during his first press conference, when asked about the climate change issue, responded by saying that there is nothing much we could do about it. Thinking about it further, there is an element of reality in it although being a small state, the least we could do is lobby for the cause.
Then came the Guardian interview.
[available at http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/nov/10/maldives-climate-change : for those who may not have read it yet]
It is an understatement to say that the idea to buy land as a 'climate change doomsday insurance policy' is radical and i doubt the practicality of such a measure. However, even keeping aside the viability of such a plan, another element of it concerns me as much.
For a 'soon to be' head of the state to openly suggest that 'we are going under' and that there's nothing we can do about it and that we plan to buy land elsewhere to move, would not really give potential foreign investors a lot of confidence. For our economy to develop, we need to do a lot to attract foreign investors and if we are seen to have lost hope on our existence per se, then why should they come and invest their millions here?
On another note, I also noticed that he made a very 'politically incorrect' comment about Israel when he said that "After all, the Israelis [began by buying] land in Palestine,". I doubt whether his Foreign Minister (to be) Shaheed and spokesperson Zaki are best pleased with that comment as it is bound to raise a few eyebrows in the diplomatic circles.
I wonder who handles the media side at the MDP-alliance...
Then came the Guardian interview.
[available at http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/nov/10/maldives-climate-change : for those who may not have read it yet]
It is an understatement to say that the idea to buy land as a 'climate change doomsday insurance policy' is radical and i doubt the practicality of such a measure. However, even keeping aside the viability of such a plan, another element of it concerns me as much.
For a 'soon to be' head of the state to openly suggest that 'we are going under' and that there's nothing we can do about it and that we plan to buy land elsewhere to move, would not really give potential foreign investors a lot of confidence. For our economy to develop, we need to do a lot to attract foreign investors and if we are seen to have lost hope on our existence per se, then why should they come and invest their millions here?
On another note, I also noticed that he made a very 'politically incorrect' comment about Israel when he said that "After all, the Israelis [began by buying] land in Palestine,". I doubt whether his Foreign Minister (to be) Shaheed and spokesperson Zaki are best pleased with that comment as it is bound to raise a few eyebrows in the diplomatic circles.
I wonder who handles the media side at the MDP-alliance...
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Unite for Change
Now that the excitement of the "cabinet announcement" is over and the new presidential term just a day away; what should be the top priority for the MDP-Alliance?
It certainly has to be uniting for change.
'Unite for Change' is perhaps one of the most successful politically motivated PR campaigns we have had in the Maldives (and some might say even in the world!). It energized and engaged, amongst others, moderate youth in a way that politicians have not been able to do before. It gave them a voice and an opportunity to be heard about issues that were close to their heart. One of the reasons for the success of the campaign was the diverse mix of people involved; women, men, girls, boys, young, old... Those who supported one candidate or the other, those who were liberal or a bit conservative in nature. Artists, Intellects, professionals and students, the list goes on.
Now it is time for the MDP-alliance to learn from the 'unite for change' movement. As you might have noted from in my earlier posts, I am a skeptic of coalitions. However, for this country to move on and for the government to be able to fulfill the campaign promises, they must now unite for change.
True, there are vast differences between some of the alliance members. If they plan to be stubborn then they should not have joined the coalition, as a coalition by nature would require compromise. I sure hope that this is the case.
More importantly, we as the people should unite for change. Society has to an extent been fragmented with different ideas during a long and hard fought election. Now that it is over, we should try to set our differences aside. Paying heed to what Obama said to his nation, we are not 'yellow islands or blue islands', we are Maldivians. We are one and we have to unite for change to take our country forward and to realize the dreams we have for our nation, for us and our children.
On another note, I just got a call from a friend pointing me towards this article. I thought it was a very interesting read. Have a look.
'Maldives seeks to buy a new homeland"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/nov/10/maldives-climate-change
It certainly has to be uniting for change.
'Unite for Change' is perhaps one of the most successful politically motivated PR campaigns we have had in the Maldives (and some might say even in the world!). It energized and engaged, amongst others, moderate youth in a way that politicians have not been able to do before. It gave them a voice and an opportunity to be heard about issues that were close to their heart. One of the reasons for the success of the campaign was the diverse mix of people involved; women, men, girls, boys, young, old... Those who supported one candidate or the other, those who were liberal or a bit conservative in nature. Artists, Intellects, professionals and students, the list goes on.
Now it is time for the MDP-alliance to learn from the 'unite for change' movement. As you might have noted from in my earlier posts, I am a skeptic of coalitions. However, for this country to move on and for the government to be able to fulfill the campaign promises, they must now unite for change.
True, there are vast differences between some of the alliance members. If they plan to be stubborn then they should not have joined the coalition, as a coalition by nature would require compromise. I sure hope that this is the case.
More importantly, we as the people should unite for change. Society has to an extent been fragmented with different ideas during a long and hard fought election. Now that it is over, we should try to set our differences aside. Paying heed to what Obama said to his nation, we are not 'yellow islands or blue islands', we are Maldivians. We are one and we have to unite for change to take our country forward and to realize the dreams we have for our nation, for us and our children.
On another note, I just got a call from a friend pointing me towards this article. I thought it was a very interesting read. Have a look.
'Maldives seeks to buy a new homeland"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/nov/10/maldives-climate-change
Friday, November 7, 2008
Coalition Cabinet
Well, finally, the list that we have all been waiting for - is out.
What are you thoughts?
I'm thinking, firstly, it is a lot slimmer than the previous government. I'm personally not too sure about a civil aviation and communication ministry as civil aviation would fit 'very properly' within the transport manifesto and with Telecommunications Authority of Maldives established as a separate body, I do not see much of a role per se for a communications portfolio at minister level. But then again, as Zaki mentioned in the press briefing, it is a coalition cabinet, and some positions have been created for people rather than the other way around. This is not an ideal situation and I wonder whether this in fact is the 'wathan edhey goiy'? Perhaps it is, perhaps not...
Anyway, I would reserve any comments till a few months on the cabinet itself. There are ofcause some controversial choices but at the end of the day, i firmly believe that they should be judged on performance and not affiliations.
Lets give it a few months and see how it goes. Come February, it will be very tough to keep the coalition together given each parties 'desire' to get a majority of seats in parliament. Anni has already declared that his party must do all it can to get a majority in parliament to ensure that they can fulfill their manifesto promises. Does this mean that if the MDP gets a majority in parliament (noting that once the new parliament is elected, Anni will no longer need a 2/3 majority to confirm the cabinet as it is only a transitional provision) he will revamp the cabinet?
Truth be said, MDP has probably picked the short straw on cabinet portfolios. The Alliance partners seem to have most of the key ministries.In an ideal situation Anni would probably want MDP backed ministers filling key positions and the only way he can do that is by MDP getting a majority in parliament.
We shall see.
What are you thoughts?
I'm thinking, firstly, it is a lot slimmer than the previous government. I'm personally not too sure about a civil aviation and communication ministry as civil aviation would fit 'very properly' within the transport manifesto and with Telecommunications Authority of Maldives established as a separate body, I do not see much of a role per se for a communications portfolio at minister level. But then again, as Zaki mentioned in the press briefing, it is a coalition cabinet, and some positions have been created for people rather than the other way around. This is not an ideal situation and I wonder whether this in fact is the 'wathan edhey goiy'? Perhaps it is, perhaps not...
Anyway, I would reserve any comments till a few months on the cabinet itself. There are ofcause some controversial choices but at the end of the day, i firmly believe that they should be judged on performance and not affiliations.
Lets give it a few months and see how it goes. Come February, it will be very tough to keep the coalition together given each parties 'desire' to get a majority of seats in parliament. Anni has already declared that his party must do all it can to get a majority in parliament to ensure that they can fulfill their manifesto promises. Does this mean that if the MDP gets a majority in parliament (noting that once the new parliament is elected, Anni will no longer need a 2/3 majority to confirm the cabinet as it is only a transitional provision) he will revamp the cabinet?
Truth be said, MDP has probably picked the short straw on cabinet portfolios. The Alliance partners seem to have most of the key ministries.In an ideal situation Anni would probably want MDP backed ministers filling key positions and the only way he can do that is by MDP getting a majority in parliament.
We shall see.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Can Anni appoint 'nominated MPs'?
One of the most controversial 'features' of the 'old' parliament is the presence of un-elected MPs who are nominated by the President and serve at his/her pleasure. I would not go into the pros and cons of such appointments since the issue is non relevant at this point in time as our new constitution does not allow for such appointments.
There is a lot of talk on the streets on whether or not Anni can appoint his own 'team of MPs' to replace the existing nominated MP's.
Clause 294 of the Constitution provides for the continuance of the People's Majlis 'until such time as the first elections of the People's Majlis under this Constitution' (quote from unofficial English translation) is held.
The interpretation of the clause is that the Majlis in its old composition shall remain till the next elections. It is by no means a 'protection' for the persons currently serving in the Majlis but for their positions and by virtue of the fact that (1) the nominated MPs are part of the old Majlis and (2) they serve at the pleasure of the President (who ever it may be), Anni does have the liberty to appoint his own MPs after taking oath as President of the Maldives.
There is a lot of talk on the streets on whether or not Anni can appoint his own 'team of MPs' to replace the existing nominated MP's.
Clause 294 of the Constitution provides for the continuance of the People's Majlis 'until such time as the first elections of the People's Majlis under this Constitution' (quote from unofficial English translation) is held.
The interpretation of the clause is that the Majlis in its old composition shall remain till the next elections. It is by no means a 'protection' for the persons currently serving in the Majlis but for their positions and by virtue of the fact that (1) the nominated MPs are part of the old Majlis and (2) they serve at the pleasure of the President (who ever it may be), Anni does have the liberty to appoint his own MPs after taking oath as President of the Maldives.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Rooting for Obama
A friend of mine who is a very strong supporter of MDP, told me recently that he would be more upset with a McCain victory in America than a Gayoom victory in the Maldives.
I am hopeful that he will have good reason for a double celebration!
I will be waiting for his call tomorrow.
I am hopeful that he will have good reason for a double celebration!
I will be waiting for his call tomorrow.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Cabinet Lottery
With November 11th drawing closer, the most talked about issue in all corners is the composition of the cabinet. To be blatantly honest without being specific; I am quite disappointed with some of the names that I have been hearing.
This is what I think.
First, this is a Presidential form of government. The mandate lies with Anni. I was never a fan of a coalition although I can understand why there was a need for one. With a coalition in place, it brings in all the cons of a parliamentary system along with it. Thankfully the government will not fail per se even if the coalition fails, although it will be very hard to govern since MDP has lesser parliament seats compared to others coalition members.
Second, Anni has stated in a press conference that the manifesto to be implemented during his term will be the MDP manifesto and not that of any other coalition member. When the cabinet is in place, wouldn't they be the ones in charge of implementing the manifesto and if so, wouldn't MDP 'backed' Ministers be in a better position to implement it?
In any case, MDP is the leading coalition member (with the most support in the first round) and therefore, with its manifesto being implemented; key ministries such as Finance, Trade, Tourism and Home should be filled by MDP backed people. How it happens in reality remains to be seen.
Thirdly, cabinet portfolios should not be a reward for campeign participation/financing. They should go to those who are best qualified for the job. Anni's manifesto is what that gave Anni the mandate to rule and his cabinet should be his choice of people whom in his view can best implement it.
I sincerely hope this is the case.
This is what I think.
First, this is a Presidential form of government. The mandate lies with Anni. I was never a fan of a coalition although I can understand why there was a need for one. With a coalition in place, it brings in all the cons of a parliamentary system along with it. Thankfully the government will not fail per se even if the coalition fails, although it will be very hard to govern since MDP has lesser parliament seats compared to others coalition members.
Second, Anni has stated in a press conference that the manifesto to be implemented during his term will be the MDP manifesto and not that of any other coalition member. When the cabinet is in place, wouldn't they be the ones in charge of implementing the manifesto and if so, wouldn't MDP 'backed' Ministers be in a better position to implement it?
In any case, MDP is the leading coalition member (with the most support in the first round) and therefore, with its manifesto being implemented; key ministries such as Finance, Trade, Tourism and Home should be filled by MDP backed people. How it happens in reality remains to be seen.
Thirdly, cabinet portfolios should not be a reward for campeign participation/financing. They should go to those who are best qualified for the job. Anni's manifesto is what that gave Anni the mandate to rule and his cabinet should be his choice of people whom in his view can best implement it.
I sincerely hope this is the case.
Ihuge bathal thakun fadhain...
Today we remember the sacrifices made by those who fought to protect us, and our identity as Maldivians.
May Allah grant them eternal peace.
May Allah grant them eternal peace.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
We the people.
More on the coalition some other time. Right now a lot of what we are hearing is about the responsibilities of the government-elect. We all voted for our respective candidates based on (i hope) what they offered for the future of our nation. Based on what they promised to do - on the responsibilities and obligations that they have assumed unto themselves.
That said; what about us? What responsibilities do we have in developing and nurturing our young and emerging democracy? A lot - in fact so much so that if I were to write about what comes to my mind, I'll be blogging on it indefinitely.
One issue I would like to highlight here is the importance of due process and our responsibility to keep tabs on the government thus holding it accountable.
In my opinion, one of the many reasons for the downfall of the Gayyoom lead government was its inability to be accountable for its actions. A system of accountability had not been in place over the many years and when, over the past few years measures came into force to hold the government accountable, it seemed to have overwhelmed a top brass who were not used to 'being accountable' as such.
One very simple illustration for it would be the reactions from the various departments to the reports published by the president appointed-parliament approved independent auditor general. The issues highlighted in the relevant audit reports were fact-based. In response, rather than giving any explanation or stating measures taken to rectify the issues; the departments chose to either attack the Auditor General (AG) and/or the methodology of the report culminating on the attempt by 'ruling' parties to remove the AG. More on that later.
Back to the point. It is essential for any society to have faith and trust in its government. Ultimately, it is up to us the people to build that trust and faith. Is it after all, the actions of us the people that break the trust we have in our government. Do we still continue to bribe the mid level government official to get/speed up any permits that we need or do we demand due process?
When Dr. Hassan was in government, I remember him saying that rights are not 'delivered on a plate' and that rights are 'given' to people who fight for it. I say its the same with due process. We have to demand for due process in every aspect of governance. If we do not we will continue to 'gift' the mid level official for years to come.
It is not only the governments responsibility to ensure that issues such as this are teethed out but equally or perhaps even more importantly, it is up to us the people to ensure that we demand for due process thus ensuring full accountability of our government.
More to come...
That said; what about us? What responsibilities do we have in developing and nurturing our young and emerging democracy? A lot - in fact so much so that if I were to write about what comes to my mind, I'll be blogging on it indefinitely.
One issue I would like to highlight here is the importance of due process and our responsibility to keep tabs on the government thus holding it accountable.
In my opinion, one of the many reasons for the downfall of the Gayyoom lead government was its inability to be accountable for its actions. A system of accountability had not been in place over the many years and when, over the past few years measures came into force to hold the government accountable, it seemed to have overwhelmed a top brass who were not used to 'being accountable' as such.
One very simple illustration for it would be the reactions from the various departments to the reports published by the president appointed-parliament approved independent auditor general. The issues highlighted in the relevant audit reports were fact-based. In response, rather than giving any explanation or stating measures taken to rectify the issues; the departments chose to either attack the Auditor General (AG) and/or the methodology of the report culminating on the attempt by 'ruling' parties to remove the AG. More on that later.
Back to the point. It is essential for any society to have faith and trust in its government. Ultimately, it is up to us the people to build that trust and faith. Is it after all, the actions of us the people that break the trust we have in our government. Do we still continue to bribe the mid level government official to get/speed up any permits that we need or do we demand due process?
When Dr. Hassan was in government, I remember him saying that rights are not 'delivered on a plate' and that rights are 'given' to people who fight for it. I say its the same with due process. We have to demand for due process in every aspect of governance. If we do not we will continue to 'gift' the mid level official for years to come.
It is not only the governments responsibility to ensure that issues such as this are teethed out but equally or perhaps even more importantly, it is up to us the people to ensure that we demand for due process thus ensuring full accountability of our government.
More to come...
Dawn of a new day
Yesterday we voted in the first multi-party presidential elections in our country's history. Today we wake up to a new dawn of promises, affectionately known as aneh dhivehi raaje or the 'other' Maldives.
The country is in need of change and with the new constitution in place, change was certainly coming. Although yesterday a significant majority decided that it was not only the system that needed to change and that we needed a new leader as well to bring about change.
Few years ago, it was unthinkable that a person from outside the ranks of the government could succeed Mr. Gayoom as the leader of this nation. It was seen as an impossible task for someone to transform from being an activist to a political leader.
Anni has today proved that the 'then' unthinkable is in fact achievable. He has successfully transformed himself from being a political activist to the leader of a nation, much in need for political, sociological and economic stability. With the coalition in place it would seem that he is well positioned to provide the country with just that.
Although, a lot depends on the success and the strength of the coalition. I am somewhat skeptical about the sustainability of a coalition that is formed with factions of very difference schools of thought. For one, how well the liberal democratic ideas of MDP sits with the conservative mindset of Adaalath remains to be seen.
As a result of us having a presidential system of government, the mandate lies with Anni himself. Not the coalition. Anni has to be a strong leader able to make tough choices if he is to hold his coalition together. But does he need the coalition to be together? Perhaps not! Although a lot will depend on the result of the Parliamentary Elections to be held in February. A power shift within the coalition itself is bound to happen based on the winnings in February. The stronger showing MDP can make in the elections, the lesser will be its need for the coalition.
Lets wait and see how it all unfolds. Interesting it shall certainly be!
The country is in need of change and with the new constitution in place, change was certainly coming. Although yesterday a significant majority decided that it was not only the system that needed to change and that we needed a new leader as well to bring about change.
Few years ago, it was unthinkable that a person from outside the ranks of the government could succeed Mr. Gayoom as the leader of this nation. It was seen as an impossible task for someone to transform from being an activist to a political leader.
Anni has today proved that the 'then' unthinkable is in fact achievable. He has successfully transformed himself from being a political activist to the leader of a nation, much in need for political, sociological and economic stability. With the coalition in place it would seem that he is well positioned to provide the country with just that.
Although, a lot depends on the success and the strength of the coalition. I am somewhat skeptical about the sustainability of a coalition that is formed with factions of very difference schools of thought. For one, how well the liberal democratic ideas of MDP sits with the conservative mindset of Adaalath remains to be seen.
As a result of us having a presidential system of government, the mandate lies with Anni himself. Not the coalition. Anni has to be a strong leader able to make tough choices if he is to hold his coalition together. But does he need the coalition to be together? Perhaps not! Although a lot will depend on the result of the Parliamentary Elections to be held in February. A power shift within the coalition itself is bound to happen based on the winnings in February. The stronger showing MDP can make in the elections, the lesser will be its need for the coalition.
Lets wait and see how it all unfolds. Interesting it shall certainly be!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
