was reading, reading. yea. nodded my head a few times. then i lost it. really lost it. maybe im just lame or maybe it was the ending.

Hi Shaafiee,

My God, man. It seems to me as if you just crawled out of some hole somewhere and wrote this entry.

The enforcement of transparency of governance you speak of requires changes to the constitution. What transparency is there where there is no accountability?

You say "there is nothing a government should keep from its people". Right, tell that to this government.

"...anyone should be able to attain benefits from the nation's resources provided they are eligible by fulfilling prerequisites..". Aren't these commonly known as 'application forms'?

I always wonder why we have so much distrust among us. When the opposition wants power could it be simply because they are a political party? We might have to be worried if they were some meat-packers party or a janitorial party.

Everyone talks as if the opposition is some mob out to amass the riches of this country when the strange thing is that they ARE an 'opposition' political party duely registered with the government. And they are functioning just the way they should and have done everywhere else on the planet.

I think we should definitely think beyond the popular hearsay. "..enjoy the benefits the latter's proponents may have had.."? What kind of thinking is this? Shouldn't we, having lived under this regime for 27+ years give the opposition the benefit of the doubt?

Honestly, man. What are you talking about?

Simon: I'm not saying opposition shouldn't be there. It's just that they aren't as willing to address the quintessential issues as much as you are.

'Application forms'? A joke perhaps? Wait. I may be just thick enough to miss it completely...

You're right on the reservations I have about the oppositions in existence. These reservations stem from their inability to address the issues which matter the most. The reason why I stated objectives instead of listing every detailed milestone is because I can't see these objectives in any opposition agendas.

Clearly you misunderstood most of the statements I made. Otherwise you would've realized the 'latter' I implied in the very last statement was the present government. I thought you of all people would have figured that out.

Shaafiee:

Just a few comments:


You said: 'It is hoping to move to a more modern democracy from its
present near-aristocratic mode of governance.'

Can you elaborate on this point? A more apt characterisation of the government or governance in the country would be to say it is dictatorial: the president is the head of the judiciary, head of the executive, and has an overwhelming power over the legislature (appoints the speaker and appoints 8 members.) Further, the president appoints and dismisses judges, the commissioner of elections, the auditor general, interprets the laws, including the constitution, and passes regulations under presidential decrees (e.g. the May regulation on assembly, which the UN on its 31 May Official Statement (http://www.un.org.mv/unrc/198) says does not live up to certain provisions in the ICCPR.)

You said: 'It is hoping to usher in an era where individual rights are respected to the extent of facilitating any prudent choice in the walk of life.'

Here it is not clear what you mean by ‘prudent choice’. For example, whether or not a certain demonstration is not prudent for a given political party, it is still their right to demonstrate. The May 10 protest for MDP might not be prudent to them, from an international relations point of view, for example, but it is their civil/political right to demonstrate.

You said: 'Yes, the nation's best minds have come together and formed political parties to do just this. They even have a solution: topple the current government and hope the next one will instigate positive change.'

I have not seen any official documents that say in order to achieve a liberal democracy, the political parties must endorse the idea of ‘toppling’ the current government. But, it is not difficult to argue that current government needs to change within to make a constitution in which the public would have confidence. (Think about the number of presidential appointees in the Special Majlis, for example.)

You said: 'The lack of a detailed proposition as to HOW the changes can be brought about befuddles me.'

Here it seems to me there can be two levels of normative/prescriptive plans on how to bring change. Firstly, on one level we all now know what ought to be done: amend the constitution and hold free and fair elections. And, ideally, forming some form of broad based transitional government would more appropriate given the presidential influence [consider DRP, too] on the reform process. (This not an exhaustive list of what we need to do.) Secondly, on another level, again, HOW to bring these changes is a question, too. I find it a bit difficult to talk on this level. Marx said it was time to change the world, but I don’t know if he was successful on presenting a ‘detailed proposition’ on how to bring about his normative system. I think this difficulty might be applicable to many otherwise normative/prescriptive philosophies. You see, Male MP Ibra and MP Addu Shareef had both called for all those above mentioned reforms in strong terms (listen to their speeches at first MDP rallies). But, it is interesting that they were not supportive of exerting pressure on the government (or Special Majlis) to speed up the reform process. Perhaps, 'homo greed' could explain this? The longer it takes for the reform process the richer they become? So, again, a 'detailed proposition' on the second level is difficult, I think partly because complex (unpredictable) entities like humans are involved. But certainly empirical evidence shows people power, including protest, has sometimes worked, too.

You said: 'Human rights is certainly not the most immediate of impediments.'

Again, it is not clear what you mean. Human rights include many rights: perhaps if you consider the
so-called three generations of human rights, this will be clear. But, a regime of freedom of expression is a necessity that we lack at the moment: we still do not have a legal framework for the media, for example; and many opposition journalists still legitimately fear persecution.

You also talk of transparency. But you see, government accountability and transparency can only be effectively there if there is freedom of expression, an effective checks and balance system, a legal system to prosecute the culprits, etc. But this is exactly what we lack. We lack freedom of expression in a meaningful sense (i.e. there is no internationally acceptable legal framework), we lack an effective checks and balance system (parliament is effectively under the government) and we lack a judiciary independent of the executive. Well, in hindsight, one may say that is exactly what the opposition parties (and the government and the DRP) and the public are calling for.

anonymous@10:28(12/11/2006),

Why I did not 'elaborate' further on the short-comings of governance is because it's a topic milked proper already. Furthermore, I agree with most of your conjecture in your lengthy comment, save two.

Firstly, the point of this post of mine is aimed at criticizing the vagueness of the plans of action proposed for the amendment of governance. You only compounded this by presenting your 'two levels' of plans, the first being 'amend the constitution and hold free and fair elections'. My dear fellow, we're all way past the realization that this country needs constitutional reform and fair elections - it's how one goes about attaining these luxuries that should be scrutinized now! Additionally, remarks such as 'Marx said it was time to change the world' don't help - besides, find someone better than Marx to quote from, even if he's part of your reading for the semester.

The second bit of conjecture I don't wholly agree on is 'there is no internationally acceptable legal framework'. Read article 4 of The Constitution of the Maldives. What am I saying? I'm saying there are written constitutional provisions for attaining transparency in governance (which is more than what the Brits have), so why aren't the opposition creating awareness as to this fact amongst the people? Why is it that they keep lamenting about the powers of the state being abused but not doing anything about it? Further reading...

Hello Shaafiee:

You said: ‘The second bit of conjecture I don't wholly agree on is 'there is no internationally acceptable legal framework'.’

Yes, you see my point is we still do not have law on freedom of expression /press. Earlier this month, Minister Nasheed tried to justify his decision not to give licence to private TV/radio channels on the grounds of this legal vacuum. I’m not arguing we should not be free to express even if there is no legal framework, but rather such a framework will go a long way in securing the rights of both the people who express and people about whom we express (e.g. libel). At the moment, because of the lack of an internationally acceptable law, every case seems to be easily fitted into ‘disobedience’ (ref: Ahmed Abbas case).

I don’t know what do you wanted to tell us by citing Article 4. The fact of the matter is the article itself proves my point about the head of the executive being the head of the judiciary. To put the problem in very simple terms: who make the laws? Answer: largely the government (8 presidential appointees and the speaker of the Majlis, and ‘laws’ by the so-called presidential decrees); who will prosecute the government? Answer: the government; who will pass the judgement? Answer: the government (or in this case judiciary in name). As for evidence, it is by now common knowledge that because of the above mentioned barriers, many high level scandal/corruption cases are in the back burners. So your question is why not the opposition do anything about this? It’s not easy to write down everything both the opposition and the government have done so far about this situation. What comes immediately to my mind is that it is at least partly because of the ‘opposition’ (such as Mohamed Nasheed (aka Anni), and Ahmed Shafeeg Moosa (aka Sappe, based in the UK)) that there is a pressure (e.g. international pressure) on the government to reform.

Lastly, as for Marx remark, it was not meant to help us about this, but to suggest that the ‘praxis’ he talked about was, to me, just another normative system without a ‘detailed’ ‘action plan’ (this is the second level I talked about). And this was mentioned in no way to belittle Marx – he in fact was one of the most influential thinkers. Cheers!

Here's article 4:

4.—(1) The powers of the State of the Maldives shall
be vested in the citizens. The said powers, for purposes
of governing the State, shall comprise the following:
(a) the Executive;
(b) the Legislature; and
(c) the Administration of Justice.
(2) In accordance with this Constitution the
executive power shall be vested in the President and
the Cabinet of Ministers, the legislative power shall
be vested in the People’s Majlis and the People’s
Special Majlis and the power of administering justice
shall be vested in the President and the courts of the
Maldives.

The 'powers of the State of the Maldves shall be vested in the citizens', which I mean as providing the right to question the affairs of the state. This right is neither negated by the statement 'The said powers, for purposes of governing the State, shall comprise' nor any of the ones which followed that.

That the executive power is 'vested in the President and the Cabinet of Ministers' only means that their's is the right to implement all means of executing the agendas necessary for proper governance (do I need to define 'governance' for you?).

I have no qualms about the legislative power being vested in the People's Majlis and the People's Special Majlis. The only worry is are the members of the two bodies going to honour the requests of their constituents? Is that a question people are asking?!

Everyone is talking about Anni when all this really started with Ibrahim Luthfy as I recall (or are you going to ask me for the historical outlay of my 'presumptions'?). What do you think Anni's plans to oust the government 'by all means' is really going to accomplish? Especially in a nation where people are just coming to grips with the realities of politics. I'll tell you what will happen: people are going to learn how to deal with their government the wrong way.

I was going to retort at your defense of Marx, but then I recalled how full of nostalia you always were.

Shaafiee:

It's not up to you or to me to interpret the constitution. Well, we can do that, but for what use? The government as I said does everything: it was the government that largely made the constitution (and as I said largely makes the laws); the government interprets the constitution, not by independent courts (because there are none); the government prosecutes people based on these laws; the government passes judgment. You can say it is a ‘one man show’. It is a hollow remark to point out that the constitution says the power is vested in people, or that people have the freedom of expression, or assembly, etc. There is no way at the moment how such provisions could work effectively and meaningfully even theoretically. As for what happens in practice, we all know what happens. So, Article 4’s provision about people’s power is powerless.

As for Anni, he was taken as an example, and by no means to show that he is the best opposition figure. I could have mentioned Luthfy’s name, as well.

You asked: ‘What do you think Anni's plans to oust the government 'by all means' is really going to accomplish?’

I do not know whether or not Anni said that, or even if he said that what he meant by that. Experience shows violent revolutions are not followed by peace, but that it would take time to let things settle down. But, if totalitarianism reaches a state when there is no alternative left, then perhaps people may ‘learn how to deal with their government the wrong way’.

Thank you for your replies.

Shaafiee:

You said: 'The only worry is are the members of the two bodies going to honour the requests of their constituents? Is that a question people are asking?!'

Two years have been into the Special Majlis, thousands if not millions of Rufiyaa have been spent, but we do not have a single amendment made to the current constitution. We have a Special Majlis dominated by government/DRP, which ideally would want to maintain the status quo, and practically have been doing that (two years!). The right question is, are people exerting enough pressure, especially given the 'power politics' in the Majlis? Again two years and millions of Rufiyaa come to mind. Given this situation, and given there is no guarantee now that the Majlis will finish their job before 2009, people can and must exert pressure through all available legitimate means, including protests.

anonymous@12:30 & 2:09 -

It IS up to you and I to interpret the constitution, and luckily for us article 4 is there for us to do so. The article even gives us the right to question the constitutional provisions if need be. I am not saying the government hasn't tried to use means of oppression to impress upon us the 'limitations' of our rights. What I am saying hold those 'legitimate' protests and what-nots for wont of clearly expressing opinions which matter. Instead of voicing concerns we should really be offering solutions, because we have that right and because it's our duty.

As for legal frameworks, they won't work unless people wield the power granted them by their rights of citizenship. All 'just' nations thrive because of the contributions of their people, not because of the infallibility of their legal frameworks.

The justification you proffer for protestation is to 'exert pressure' on the reform process. Fine. Have you ever considered asking the protesters at any given rally whether they understand the reasons why they are protesting? I'll tell you what answer they'll give: to overthrow the government. How would you like to teach your kids how to overthrow your government? Who amongst the opposition has been taking the time to explain to the public why it is that we need reform, or what reform really embodies? Have you?

"The second bit of conjecture I don't wholly agree on is 'there is no internationally acceptable legal framework'. Read article 4 of The Constitution of the Maldives. What am I saying? I'm saying there are written constitutional provisions for attaining transparency in governance (which is more than what the Brits have), so why aren't the opposition creating awareness as to this fact amongst the people? Why is it that they keep lamenting about the powers of the state being abused but not doing anything about it?"

I fully agree with Shafiee here. The failure of the opposition is failing to make people aware.Look at the crap we find in minivan network.

Shaafiee:

You said: ‘Instead of voicing concerns we should really be offering solutions…’

Again, everyone is clear on what ought to be done: amending the constitution and holding free and fair elections. (Perhaps an interim government should be created to increase the confidence of the people in the reform process and in the constitution.) This is not happening at the moment, despite the rhetoric. The government knows these solutions at least since June 2004. But, since these things are not happening, the next level of solutions is how to achieve these solutions given our circumstances. I do not know if anyone knows this level of ‘detailed’ action plans. One thing the people can do is to exert pressure, even through protests. This should not automatically being taken as attempts to overthrow the government.

If a government cannot save itself from a minority attempt to overthrow it, one may question whether such a government has power. If sometimes a majority overthrows the government, again one may wonder whether it is unacceptable, or whether it is the ‘wrong way to deal with their government’. If totalitarianism reaches a level where there is no alternative to overthrow, the ‘subjects’ may try to become ‘citizens’ and utilise that option. But, is this the situation in the Maldives?

Shareef: Of course the constitution gives you the freedom of expression, assembly, and even says the government derives its legitimacy from the will of the people. But, these are hollow provisions given the structural barriers: 1) who is there in the first place to interpret these provisions? Answer: the government. (The crisis over constitutional provision about voting for the Special Majlis president comes to mind. Who decided the matter? Not an independent court (because there is none).) It is false to say that people were not aware that the constitution gives them the freedom of expression two or three years ago. But what happened? There was no free media, which is acknowledged now even by the government. Well, what happens is the government decides what you can express (meaning the government interprets the constitutional provision), and the government prosecutes you, and the government passes judgment on you. So, mere provisions are as good as no provisions given these structural barriers which give the executive dictatorial powers.

As for Minivan network, I don’t know how much they have contributed to making people aware of ‘politics’. But, we should keep in mind ours is still an infant media, and that we still do not have many good journalists. This is a process, which we wish would evolve for the betterment of the people. Again, it is false to say people are not aware of what the constitution says, and people do not know what ought to be done, and they are not urging to bring these changes immediately.



Shaafiee:

You said: ‘Instead of voicing concerns we should really be offering solutions…’

Again, everyone is clear on what ought to be done: amending the constitution and holding free and fair elections. (Perhaps an interim government should be created to increase the confidence of the people in the reform process and in the constitution.) This is not happening at the moment, despite the rhetoric. The government knows these solutions at least since June 2004. But, since these things are not happening, the next level of solutions is how to achieve these solutions given our circumstances. I do not know if anyone knows this level of ‘detailed’ action plans. One thing the people can do is to exert pressure, even through protests. This should not automatically be taken as attempts to overthrow the government.

If a government cannot save itself from a minority attempt to overthrow it, one may question whether such a government has power. If sometimes a majority overthrows the government, again one may wonder whether it is unacceptable, or whether it is the ‘wrong way to deal with their government’. If totalitarianism reaches a level where there is no alternative to overthrow, the ‘subjects’ may try to become ‘citizens’ and utilise that option. But, is this the situation in the Maldives?

anonymous/Stephano:

In your paragraph 3 (and 9 too?!) I hear you preaching an oximoron of sorts with the statement 'everyone is clear on what ought to be done: amending the constitution and holding free and fair elections'. By saying this you're just giving me a plain old definition of reform, and yet presuming that 'everyone's clear on what ought to be done'. I think it is you who has to do some explaining here, sir.

Read paragraph 4 and see if it makes sense for yourself.

IF you have the right to ask 'who is there in the first place to interpret these provisions?' then I have every right to ask 'how does the opposition interpret parts of law and the constitution as providing them with the right to protest'?

Finally (phew), paragraph 6 tells me you need to lay off of philosophy for a bit. How on earth you decided that Maldivians were well-versed in the constitution and law of the country is beyond me (you ought to know the demographics).

My dear fellow, people really don't know what ought to be done. I know you're going to say 'everyone is clear on what ought to be done: amending the constitution and holding free and fair elections' (and I repeat this here because I know you will in your next comment for sure), but it is you yourself who admits that 'the constitution gives you the freedom of expression, assembly, and even says the government derives its legitimacy from the will of the people'. Let me clear your own contradictions for you: you know there are already provisions in the constitution for reform, so instead of calling for its amendment, what you should really be doing is reviewing what is therein and educating and empowering the people with it. Further amendments to the constitution and law (including that of elections) of the country will follow when these empowered people start using their newfound knowledge towards common goals.

stupid Shafiee....
He's got sand in his vagina.

:>

Shaafiee:

Again, the problem is not that the current constitution does not give the people certain fundamental freedoms. And what I am saying is everyone knows that the constitution gives them these freedoms. Of course everyone is an exaggeration (children might not know, for example.) But for political purposes, the extent of this knowledge in the Maldives now would be enough.

Paragraph 6 you mentioned, is again the same claim I made in the first paragraph above. It is an exaggeration to literally mean every single Maldivian, of course. But for political purposes, the level of awareness on these fundamental freedoms would be enough. This is based on 1) media: for example Adduvas, Fiyes, Minivan have been doing this job of creating awareness for some years now; and, even TVM and Voice of the Maldives have contributed to creating this much of education among people. 2) growing political unrest: since September 2003, the level of political unrest in the Maldives has contributed to people’s awareness on these fundamentals in the constitution. 3) political party meetings: political parties have virtually held rallies in every island in the Maldives, and talked about these provisions in the constitution. I think these three points provide sufficient grounds for the claim that people are aware of these fundamentals in the constitution. I did not mention these points because that people now know that the constitution gives them these freedoms is common knowledge. In arguments if a proposition is common knowledge there is no burden of proof for it on your shoulders.

The problem is how barriers within the constitution and within state institutions will not let these freedoms be utilized meaningfully at the moment. I have mentioned these barriers many times now. These are both legal barriers at theoretical level, and barriers at the practical level (you talked of aristocracy, too.) So, again these provisions are powerless.

What is the ‘oximoron’ [sic?]? My point that ‘everyone’ knows what ought to be done is an application of my two levels of the ‘how’ question. The first level, which I think falls into the usual normative level (normative ethical systems), is easy, it is just telling what ought to be done: amending the constitution and holding free and fair elections. This we know.

But what we do not know, or what I do not know, is the second level: how to achieve the above mentioned goals. So, what is the oxymoron?

anonymous/Stephano:

First you said:
But, a regime of freedom of expression is a necessity that we lack at the moment: we still do not have a legal framework for the media, for example; and many opposition journalists still legitimately fear persecution.

Then you said:
But, we should keep in mind ours is still an infant media, and that we still do not have many good journalists.

Finally, you said:
But for political purposes, the level of awareness on these fundamental freedoms would be enough. This is based on 1) media: for example Adduvas, Fiyes, Minivan have been doing this job of creating awareness for some years now; and, even TVM and Voice of the Maldives have contributed to creating this much of education among people. 2) growing political unrest: since September 2003, the level of political unrest in the Maldives has contributed to people’s awareness on these fundamentals in the constitution. 3) political party meetings: political parties have virtually held rallies in every island in the Maldives, and talked about these provisions in the constitution.

So, according to you we already have all the freedoms and awareness to live perky. Anything more I should add?

FYI... I don't use a spellchecker I'm afraid... :(

Shaafiee:

Do I imply we have these freedoms in a meaningful sense? This is what I have been saying. Despite provisions in the constitution due to certain barriers they are hollow and powerless. And people are aware of these provisions, that is the other claim I made. Even today if the government wants it can close down the young media. 1) Because it is the government who interprets the freedom of expression in the constitution. So, we need a constitutional court to interpret the constitution. 2) Because it is the government who passes judgment. So, we need a judiciary independent of the government (or executive). 3) Because we do not have internationally acceptable laws applicable to the media (e.g. proper defamation laws). But, even if we have a law, at present it will not be as effective as we want it to be, given the executive influence on the judiciary and the legislature. But this would no doubt be a positive step.

Can't pass up saying this really, so here goes.

Stephano, the phrase 'amending the constitution and holding free and fair elections' must be a personal mantra of sorts eh? You used the phrase 'normative level' to justify repeating it when you very well know that 'normative' is as vague as one can get. What I have been saying all along is that you people ARE vague and HAVE NO CLUE as to what has to be done IN ORDER TO amend the constitution (before which one has to use the constitutional provisions to empower the people to bring about those amendments).

I'm really looking forward to hearing your mantra again. :)

Stephano, do you know what a broken record sounds like?

Shaafiee:

I don't know. And I never said I know. But I suggested exerting pressure, including protests.

This is my last comment to you on this particular topic. :)

Stephano: cheers mate! Regards to the two ladies you've got 'showering' with ya.

Shaafiee:

hahaha

Shaafiee: what ladies?

Even people dont know what a constitution means.