IT in Maldives has a lot in common with its politics. Namely, the proponents are quick to shoot down the forerunners and they have a niggling need for frequent teas (aka coffees - go figure).

The people have been made to believe that everything works at their pace. There is no respect for planned milestones and the potential domino effects of failing the time frames. Anyone who raises the alarm on noticing wayward project trajectories are considered traitors. Anyone who refuses to go down with the ship is considered a coward (especially since everyone else is looking forward to a ritual sacrifice).

There are reasons for this. One of these is the unwillingness to accept inherent flaws. The key to adjusting a person's attitude is identifying its existence. This is the principle of unfreezing, as suggested by Kurt Lewin.

The other reason for the continued depravity of Maldivian IT is the general precociousness. It is always good to be proud of one's own achievements. However, this pride should never go to one's head. The only way to remain objective throughout one's growth is to respect the advice offered by forerunners. Always remember to learn before teaching.

Bank of Maldives needs to stop pretending to be capable of providing proper e-banking services. More than half their links on their website do not even have a target resource!!! Like this one:

http://ebanking.bankofmaldives.com.mv/st/services/tradeAndForeignRelated/internationalMoneyTransfer/outwardSwiftTransfer.php

It would seem that NCIT are not the only ones with a lethargic IT team.

The ominous return of Maumoon's former accomplices has already begun. This is what was being veiled by the smokescreen of debates over threats that Maumoon still posed.

The Maldivian people need to be aware that names like 'Abdulla Shahid' were considered in the same vein as Maumoon or Yameen. If Shahid and co. are to be given a free pass, so too should Maumoon and Yameen.

A deliberate agenda can be gleaned from the sequence of events following Dhiyana's castration. In the latest installment of the saga, Anni suggests that the attorney general's (AG) office is no longer involved in 'criminal prosecution or drafting legislation'. It is surprising then that clause (g) of article 133 of the constitution states:
'The Attorney General shall have power to issue general directives to the Prosecutor General on the conduct of criminal proceedings.'

Furthermore, clause (c) of article 220 of the constitution states:
'The Prosecutor General (PG) is independent and impartial, and he shall not be under the direction or control of any person or authority in carrying out his responsibilities and the exercise of his powers. He shall carry out his responsibilities and exercise his powers without fear, favour or prejudice, subject only to the general policy directives of the Attorney General, and on the basis of fairness, transparency, and accountability.'

These two clauses certainly indicate that the AG has some purview over the work of the PG. What of 'drafting legislation' then? The sources of new legislative bills are the people (as per article 4 of the constitution), the parliamentary members/committees and the government. Where government bills are concerned, according to clauses (a), (b) and (c) of article 133 of the constitution, the AG should be responsible for drafting them.

The whispers of conspiracy and propaganda arise from these ill-informed remarks made by the government. One might be inclined to think that Anni's intention of constricting the AG's office, despite the constitutional provisions, arises from a need for greater control (is that not the road to autocracy?).

Readers would be interested to know that the responsibilities of the AG of Maldives (as per the constitution at least) are similar to those of the AG of the British government. Given this in conjunction with Anni's new intentions for the AG's office, the MDP's purported affiliations with the British Conservative Party is a little amusing.

---

On Dhiyana's interview:
She should also have cited clause (e) of article 133 of the constitution, which states:
'The Attorney General shall promote, protect, uphold and defend the rule of law, the public safety, the freedoms of the public and the public interest.'

Maumoon's cabinet can now claim that they 'tried to criticize the government in private' for 30 years but never got the old man to listen. That the code of loyalty demanded the cabinet's collective silence despite the Maldivian people's sufferings.

It would seem that Anni's vision of governance is not so far removed from Maumoon's. However, Anni's dismissal of Dhiyana's advice was not followed by submission on the latter's part (unlike some former attorney generals). Dhiyana was at least rebellious enough to escalate the issue (involve the 'public sphere'). The Maldivian people should be proud of her. After all, President Eisenhower's quote was not in admonition of rebellion but in defence of it.

This is Anni at his best. What can one presume but the influence of cronyism in the president's decision-making? Why else would he appoint an individual who has had no legal training (in the slightest) to undertake the duties (albeit temporarily) of the most demanding legal job in the country, whilst primarily serving the role of Finance Minister?

This is not the first time Anni has shut out critics within his administration. That Anni gave her the boot despite Dhiyana's letters containing sound advice is all the more amusing. If political appointees were illegally influencing the elections (or seemed to be doing so), is it not the attorney general's prerogative to escalate the issue to the president?

During the post-MDP years of reform the police service was separated from the national defense force in order to do justice to the phrase 'separation of powers'. Allowing the defense minister to serve as acting home minister was initially politically counterproductive. Letting the situation fester was worse and warranted advice from the government's leading legal counsel (which does not happen to be Husnu Suood).

In no way did either letter demand Anni's resignation. Neither did any of the letters demand immediate action. They advised the president on matters that concerned the attorney general and why they should be addressed. If the attorney general gets canned every time this happens then why have one at all? Why not contract a yes-man like Husnu Suood to hang from the puppeteer's threads? It has certainly not been that long for Maldivians to forget that the attorney generals of Maumoon's era were considered puppets in the public's eye?

It is high time politicians caught a glimpse of the impending dystopia materializing on the fuel of Anni's stubborn singlemindedness. If his autocracy is this acute just months into his presidency, consider what awaits Maldives 4 years from now.

It is disconcerting that Minivan News keeps publishing highly biased propagandist articles. This article tries to justify 'civil disobedience' as a means of effecting deliberative democracy. It coins the phrase 'government by discussion' to describe this.

John Stuart Mill's (from whom the phrase was borrowed) book, On Liberty, does not endorse civil disobedience. In fact, he delimits any civil actions by saying:

'...the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.'

To describe deliberative democracy Joshua Cohen writes in his essay Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy, the following:

'The notion of a deliberative democracy is rooted in the intuitive ideal of a democratic association in which the justification of the terms and conditions of association proceeds through public argument and reasoning among equal citizens. Citizens in such an order share a commitment to the resolution of problems of collective choice through public reasoning, and regard their basic institutions as legitimate in so far as they establish the framework for free public deliberation.'

Although governing through opinions gleaned from the public sphere is participatory governance (the extent to which the current government would consider public discourse remains to be seen), it does not fulfill the definition of deliberative democracy. In the case of Maldives as a country, deliberative democracy should be the direct involvement of every individual in debating the 'terms and conditions' under which they are citizens. Where any such debate fails to reach a consensus Cohen recommends '...voting, subject to some form of majority rule' and not 'civil disobedience'.

Mr. Zahir's article does nothing more than justify anarchist ideals (violation of civil order) as a means to achieving the government's agenda. The type of democracy the article presents will probably fall under militant democracy, which is 'an answer to secure the transition to democracy after decades under just one party authoritarian Government.'

After reading this article one would think Minivan News was no more than a little blog where its employees vent their frustrations, write opinion pieces and divulge unsubstantiated conjecture. Facts and figures be damned.

Someone (anonymous) has made a comment in reply to the previous post to the effect that Anni is a vaccine intended to get rid of Maumoon's 'kingdom.' This is no more than a diversionary mantra fed to MDP loyalists to keep the Maldivian people from realizing the truth.

The truth is that the leadership ranks of the incumbent government is frilled with Maumoon's former henchmen. The slightest scrutiny will show that the minorities who were marginalized during Maumoon's era are still being marginalized by Anni's government. Only those who have been marginalized will realize that nothing has really changed.

Those who long for religious freedom (or even freedom from religion) are oppressed by MoIA. The folks from the north and south extremes of Maldives are still underrepresented in the government. The oligarchs who ruled during Maumoon's tenure are still there, still wielding the greater powers of the country.

What the people do not realize is that Anni is not willing to change anything. If he wished to, he could reduce the income polarities which see the poor sinking into debt and the rich profiting from it. If he chose to, he could give the islanders opportunities equal to those enjoyed by Male' residents.

The reality is Anni has taken over the reigns from Maumoon. There is no more Maumoon to be feared from. He can never again become the president of Maldives. The fears about his possible return have been concocted only to divert the public's attention from what is imminent: the depravation of the country's government. As for the return of Maumoon's aides, this is nothing new (Ibrahim Hussein Zaki and Dr. Shaheed for instance). Then again more than a hefty majority of people who served in Maumoon's government is serving in Anni's. Party affiliations do not turn people into enemies of democracy unless MDP truly has divine blessings and DRP an alliance with the devil.

Anni did not get himself elected to eradicate any disease. He intended to be the disease all along. Maldivians are the unwitting and gullible hosts he is gorging on. Bon appetit.

Anni who oft-decried forceful police tactics seems to have no qualms about endorsing them now that he is the one in the throne.

There is no doubt that the promises of good governance and institutional reform was only used to gloss his candidacy in last year's presidential race. Now that he is comfortably nestled into the throne he has completely washed his hands of all his campaign promises. Anni is exactly the caricature he used to accuse Maumoon of being.

When plans come apart at the seams the heads of state of Maldives always resort to the oldest trick in politics: cover it all up with flamboyant accolades intended to make themselves look good.

When Maumoon was having a hard time convincing people of his value to the nation he sought to be recognized at par with world leaders like Lee Kwan Yew, Kofi Annan and Shimon Perez, via the GCMG. He achieved it too.

Now Anni wants to follow suit. In order to cover up the country's flailing leadership, regressing democracy, waning justice, increasing crime, ballooning inflation, declining economy, etc., the government 'applies' (note the application procedure on the site) for the Anna Lindh Prize. The difference between Maumoon and Anni is that the latter could only manage to be hailed in the ranks of journalists and activists, despite his presidency.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me! (or "you can't get fooled again", if you prefer). It is about time Anni and his posse learned to be straight with his citizens.

The cracks are showing in the Maldivian government's haste to attain partisan control in the parliament. The self-proclaimed champions of liberty and justice have suddenly transformed into the very leaders Maldivians sought to shed not so long ago. 'How so?!' you ask?

The government is attempting the forceful neutralization of potential threats (it is pleasantly surprising to see this story published on Minivan News, of all gazettes) in the run-up to the elections. The relocation of Randhoo Island Chief is intended to derail any potential opposition rallies on the island, which could lead to the MDP candidate losing ground. This is (most certainly) also a tactic being used to strike fear into the hearts of all opponents who have got anything to lose (a family of five to leave behind, in Hassan Naseer Ibrahim's case).

What it really is is a throwback to yesteryear, when the government's needs were begotten at the cost of people's rights. And here the current administration laments endlessly about DRP's leaders. Gudho gudho!

Anni should take a lesson from President Obama's intended crackdown on tax evasion tactics in the form of overseas outsourcing, incubating, banking and various financial skullduggery.

The foreign currency deficit being experienced in Maldives can only be managed by studying what happens to the annual revenues from major industries, especially tourism, which makes upwards of USD 600 million annually. The government should start sparring with the capitalists in order to attain their operations details, as long as they are doing business in Maldives. If the flow of money within and/or through Maldives is not dissected thoroughly, then it cannot be regulated. If it is not regulated then financial institutions will become weaker day by day.

Anni is one serious player. He would do just about anything to come off as the good Samaritan.

Whereas defamation cases could be filed as civil actions since January 2007, the Prosecutor General amended regulations in April to allow only criminal courts to try these cases. Lo and behold, now Anni is asking the PG to reverse the decision he made only last month. Is this not a put-on intended to show Anni's benevolence?

Minivan News has published an interview with Dr. Shaheed which begs some attention. One of the statements is, 'We’re in danger of sliding back either into a Gayoom-style autocracy by Gayoom himself or perhaps by some other person.'

Apparently his fears hinge on the premise that 'if an old guard comes back, they come back with the message that democracy has failed.'

On 28 April, in an article published on Minivan News, Anni's press secretary was quoted as saying, "What I mean to say is that even if the president wanted to be a dictator, he can’t... The constitution prevents one man holding all the powers. Otherwise, independent institutions wouldn’t exist."

This shows how desperate the current government is of attaining absolute majority in parliament. The government's Foreign Minister is squashing its own claim of institutionalization of democracy. All this, just for the sake of ensuring that no one else gets a seat in parliament.

With regards to institutionalizing democracy, what little work Gayoom did is being undone by the current government. At the moment, the Defense Minister is the Home Minister, the parliament is still on a government payroll, the judiciary accedes to the president's whims (the changing of defamation suits to criminal cases from civil actions) and the constitution does not recognize any of the current MPs.

As for Shaheed's fear of what might happen if the 'old guard comes back', one of their staunchest supporters, the conservatives, are the old guard in UK. No one there is afraid of their resurgence, simply because the institution is stronger than the government. Also, the conservatives' representation in parliament ensures the Labour Party's continued honesty. Hence, without DRP representation (or that of another very strong opposition) in Majlis who will keep MDP in check?

In response to the question of his tenure with the former administration Shaheed says, "Yes accountability doesn’t exclude anybody. I mean it. But I’m not saying everyone should be dragged to the courts and into prison. I’m talking about the rule of law here. We have to know what happened. The danger here is democracy is still a very new idea in this country." Thereupon he goes off-topic by a mile. He does not manage to give a convincing reason for his continued support for Gayoom despite Maldivians (this blogger included) voicing out their concerns (even as far back as the Sangu days) about corruption and injustice.

Many public figures of the former government excuse themselves by claiming fear of repercussions. If this is Dr. Shaheed's claim too then he should consider the countless Maldivian families he sacrificed in order to feel safe.

In a comment made to a post on this blog a reader claims that:
"online definition dictionaries today most likely carry more weight than most books today on the market - definitely sites like Wiki where contributions come from the best of the best to the village idiot."

Does this mean that people are so addicted to web-based knowledge that they truly believe free online information is comprehensive? Are people really believing that Richard Stallman and his cohort are prevailing in the liberation of intellectual property? Have big corporations like Microsoft finally lost their grips on information-based revenue sources? Has Wikipedia become the unabridged encyclopedia for all time?

Stay tuned to find out...

One could draw some interesting parallelisms between Anni and India's Manmohan from this story. Manmohan's self-insulation from critique could be drawing admiration from Anni. Or could it be that Anni's impetuosity and unilateralism is born out of this admiration?

• Way before Anni was even thinking of the MDP primaries people knew the dangers of burgeoning fundamentalist factions of Islam in Maldives.


• By the time Anni was campaigning for the big job, Adhaalath had gained enough momentum to give the moderates a cause for concern.


• During the runoff campaign, Anni allied himself with Adhaalath for want of their party constituency.


• The alliance struck with Adhaalath manifested itself in the form of the Ministry of Islamic Affairs, a non-existent entity at the time of Anni's inauguration.


• The creation of the MoIA enabled Adhaalath to infest its extremist agendas on the state platform in the form of statutory regulations.


• Anni's supporters refuse to accept that he is to blame for compromising his stance on religious issues (if there was one in the first place) by associating with Adhaalath.


• Talk in town is now suggesting that Anni's obedience to the Adhaalath agenda can be attributed to the respect he has for religion.


• Some minority looks to be exploiting this situation to put the blame on religion, which in turn is the same as putting the blame on God, which is akin to believing in a deity, thereby confusing themselves of their own beliefs.


• In the end, the majority accepts the theory that religion failed them (not people), hence burying all history of corruption and injustice under an involuntarily murmured 'alhamdulillah'.


• It will not be surprising if, in the confusion of this theological chutzpa, a new autocracy rears its ugly head and the old oligarchies nestle into another cozy 30-year ride.


• Who will facilitate this? Those who attribute everything to religion and God (atheists and theists alike). God is not directly interacting with humanity (even believers should understand this from their respective scriptures). People commit crimes of their own accord. Whoever is intentionally attributing crimes to religions or God are as naive as the believers and as diabolical as the criminals they help purify (intentionally or not).