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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Dos, my article never assumes a cabinet member should remain silent or go on criticizing in private for ages (30 years!) when things go wrong on his or her watch. On the contrary, there are things they could do. One of the most drastic options is to resign.
Things will be clearer if we distinguish two perspectives: the President's and AG's.
To clear AG's perspective, Berlin's ideas on 'value pluralism' may help: there is a genuine value of having a working relationship/trust with the president and a genuine value of informing the public. Dhiyana (and some) may think the value of informing the public outweighs the value of a working relationship or trust with the president. But, I think, the value of informing the public by way of criticism and outright rejection of the president would be greatly diminished if she did so still as a cabinet member. That is one perspective.
If you think of the President's perspective, things are quite different. My point is a president (however bad he or she may be) must have the trust, confidence, loyalty, and an excellent working relationship with his or her cabinet members.
That remains true however valid one's dissent maybe. Thanks.
Azim
Azim,
What about a situation where the president is conducting affairs to achieve malevolent ends? Would you say Hassan Saeed was wrong to speak out against Maumoon?
Also, tell me how the AG can help the people gain any perspective by quitting the job.
When the President said DRP candidates are thieves and when the President lied about mid-term election and when the President told Alifushi people how ruthless he can be, when the President spoke of stepping one’s own genitals on public TV, his sympathizers didn’t find him morally wrong. In fact they kept on saying it is the citizens who need to change their mindset and the president is totally right to speak that way in public. But now when AG spoke in public against her boss on a matter of high importance for the general public, for them, it’s morally wrong and unacceptable in a modern democracy.
Post a Comment