THE Maldives has the reputation of being the first country in South Asia to adopt a democratic form of government. Long before “constitutional monarchies” were thought to be possible in the East, the Maldives’ hereditary Sultan, Shamsuddin, promulgated a constitution on Dec 22, 1932, under which the Sultan was to be “elected” by a “Council of Advisers” comprising the elite of the country.

However, to date, the Maldivians have not been able to ensure the survival of democracy, despite their periodic struggles. This country of 330,000 people has, over the past 80 years, witnessed a battle between the forces of democracy and those of authoritarianism, in which the odds have favoured the latter.

Sadly, the country’s revolutionary tryst with democracy in 1932 failed within two years. In 1934, Sultan Shamsuddin was deposed by Hassan Nuruddin who made himself the Sultan. But in 1943, Nuruddin was forced to abdicate because he could not find a solution to the problem of shortages created by World War II.

Nuruddin’s successor, Sultan Abdul Majeed Didi, being too old, did not last long. He handed over powers to the prime minister, Mohamad Amin Didi, andleft for Ceylon as Sri Lanka was then known.

Republics of 1953 and 1968

On Jan 1, 1953, the ambitious Amin Didi abolished the Sultanate, established a “republic” and became the first president of the country. But the first republic was short lived as Amin Didi was overthrown in 1954. The country reverted to the Sultanate and “elected” Mohamad Farid Didi as the 94th. Sultan.

However, by the mid-1960s, the people got tired of the Sultanate. In a referendum held on the issue in 1968, they voted for its abolition. A second republic was proclaimed on Nov 11, 1968. Ibrahim Nasir, who had been prime minister since 1957, was elected president.

But Nasir was a disaster. Unable to handle the economic crisis of the 1970s, and not knowing how to handle the growing social and political unrest, he started harassing the opposition, which led to his opponents hatching plots to overthrow him. Eventually, Nasir quit in 1978 and fled to Singapore, reportedly with $4 million from the treasury.

Maumoon Gayoom

The man who replaced Nasir was Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, a university lecturer who was then the Maldivian Ambassador at the UN. Gayoom gave an extraordinary thrust to tourism which turned the Maldives into a country with a per capita Gross National Income (GNI) of $5750 by 2010. But he adopted undemocratic means, packed the Peoples’ Majlis (parliament) with his relatives and cronies. He would hold elections in which he would be the only candidate.

1988 Bid for Coup

The first challenge that Gayoom faced was in 1988 when a Colombo-based Maldivian businessman, Abdulla Luthufi, tried to stage a coup assisted by 80 mercenaries supplied by the Sri Lankan Tamil militant group, Peoples’ Liberation Organisation of Tamil Eelam (PLOTE). But their sea-borne assault was thwarted by India, which rushed 1,600 paratroopers and a naval vessel to the Maldives in a lightning operation code named “Operation Cactus”.

But the defeat of the insurgents did not ensure peace for Gayoom. The scant respect he showed for democratic rights led to the formation of the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) under the leadership of young Mohamed Nasheed.

Due to repression in the Maldives, the MDP had to function from safe houses in Colombo. But its activities in the Maldives itself were enough for Gayoom to feel highly threatened. The 1990s saw Nasheed going in and out of jail. He and his movement drew world’s attention. In 1991, Amnesty International gave Nasheed the ‘Prisoner of Conscience’ award.

Reform Package

The MDP’s relentless struggle against repression eventually made Gayoom promulgate a new reform package in 2004. He decreed multi-party elections and a two-term limit for the president. But when people tried to use the new-found freedom, Gayoom would set the National Security Service (NSS) against them.

Widespread international criticism of his repressive regime made Gayoom promulgate a new constitution on August 7, 2008, which was highly democratic.

The 2008 constitution curbed the president’s powers and increased those of the Peoples’ Majlis or parliament, to such an extent that a battle between the president and the Majlis could not be avoided especially if they represented different political formations,For example, the president can send back a bill to the Majlis only once. If the Majlis sticks to its guns, he has to give assent to it. The president cannot appoint or remove any minister without the approval of the Majlis. High officials and judges of the courts, who are appointed by the president on the advice of independent commissions, have to have the sanction of the Majlis before they taking office.

The Majlis has the power to remove a president, albeit after an investigation. The common man also has been empowered to lodge complaints to the Majlis against the president. A majority in the Majlis can remove a cabinet minister.

The constitution makes the judiciary completely independent. The process of removing a judge has to be started, not by the president, but by the judicial commission. The commission has to conduct an investigation and leave the final decision to the Majlis. Though functioning under the president, the work of the civil service is overseen by the Majlis. Even the Security Services come under the Majlis. The President cannot deploy the military without the consent of the Majlis.

New elections

In the presidential election held under the new constitution on Oct 10, 2008, Nasheed got 54 per cent of the popular vote and won. Gayoom quit gracefully. But Nasheed got into trouble after the parliamentary elections in 2009. These elections gave a coalition led by Gayoom’s Dhevehi Rayyathunge Party, a slim majority in the house. The stage was thus set for a conflict between the Executive and the legislature.

Nasheed suspected that the bureaucracy, police and judiciary were showing loyalty to Gayoom, having been appointed during the latter’s 30-year long rule. According to the opposition parties however, Nasheed was being opposed for good reasons. He was arbitrary, overstepping constitutional limits, and not acting transparently in deals as required by the constitution.

Nasheed too, like Gayoom, gave largesse to his friends and relatives. Over 80 islands were reportedly handed over to his cronies to be developed as resorts. Shops in the airport were given to foreigners depriving opportunities to locals to do business. There was large-scale misuse of funds. Appointments were made without the Majlis’ sanction. The independent commissions got the short shrift. Media freedom got eroded severely as the national TV station became an MDP mouthpiece.

Nasheed detained opposition MP Abdulla Yameen and refused to produce him in court, flouting a court order to do so. Amnesty International complained that there was no proper definition of crime and trials were not fair. Recently, the military arrested the Chief Judge of the Criminal Court, Abdulla Mohamad.

Gayoom-Islamist Alliance

Nasheed’s secularism did not go down well with the emerging Islamic fundamentalist groups, which objected to the installation of commemorative statues during the Saarc summit last year. More recently, the Islamists protested against the existence of massage parlours in the resorts and also the flow of liquor. To Nasheed’s discomfiture, Gayoom’s party joined the Islamists in an alliance. Nasheed took action against massage parlours, but reportedly targeted only the resorts owned by opposition supporters.

Agitations became the order of the day. Police went against Nasheed for issuing “illegal” orders. The army, which was with him generally, also got divided at one stage. Finally, he came under police pressure to ‘resign’. A battle between the rivals on the streets, culminated on Feb 7 with Nasheed’s resignation.

As per constitution, Vice President Mohamed Waheed Hassan took over.

President Waheed has come out with the idea of forming a “National Unity Government” to restore peace and bring about orderly changes. According to diplomatic circles, the international community is in favour of such a government if it restores stability and helps sustain democracy.