-
CENTRES
Progammes & Centres
Location
After years of presidential overreach and broken coalitions, the Maldives must confront the structural flaws in its Constitution or risk democratic collapse
Image Source: Getty
The arrest of young Aishath Shiman Ahmed and Abdullah Mahzoom on 1 May during a peaceful protest has left Maldivians with a strong sense of déjà vu. Yet another president bites the constitutional dust; yet another government mistakes a mandate for impunity. Maldivians are attuned to this一we know all too well the slippery slope that begins with the arrest of one critical voice and ends in full-scale democratic backsliding.
Perhaps it is time to analyse why this pattern repeats with such predictability, and recognise that our democratic challenges run deeper than just the fancies and failures of individual leaders.
Since multi-party democracy began in 2008, Maldivian voters have remained consistent at the ballot box: no incumbent president has secured a second term. This cycle of disappointment transcends political ideologies and personalities, revealing what appears to be a fundamental design defect: voters are rejecting something deeper than just individual leaders or parties.
Ibrahim Mohamed Solih came to power on a strong coalition platform, yet his leadership failed to win voters' confidence after five years. Now, Mohamed Muizzu faces widespread discontent even before reaching the halfway mark of his term.
Mohamed Nasheed, the first democratically elected leader, was toppled in a coup. Voters then elected Yameen Abdul Gayoom, who governed with an iron fist, only to decisively reject him after one term. Ibrahim Mohamed Solih came to power on a strong coalition platform, yet his leadership failed to win voters' confidence after five years. Now, Mohamed Muizzu faces widespread discontent even before reaching the halfway mark of his term.
While the 2008 Constitution undoubtedly established a democratic framework, 15 years of experience have revealed critical design flaws. The drafters envisioned a delicate balance of powers with robust checks and balances in theory, but in practice, presidential power has steamrolled through constitutional guardrails. They never anticipated scenarios where presidents would command parliamentary majorities of upwards of 80 percent, resulting in a system with nominal checks on presidential authority.
The Parliament, which is meant to be the public's primary means of holding the executive accountable, becomes effectively neutered when the executive commands a legislative majority, as has been the case for every government (except the first democratically elected administration). Presidents have routinely shielded themselves from accountability, treating any attempt at parliamentary oversight as a personal affront rather than a constitutional obligation.
The judicial branch falls victim to the same system. Envisaged as the ultimate bastion of the Maldives Constitution, it has not been spared executive forays. Through both brazen and subtle interventions, consecutive presidents have systematically eroded its independence.
The appointment and removal of institutional heads nominally fall under parliamentary control; therefore, when presidents command parliamentary majorities, this check too becomes meaningless. With presidents controlling parliament, the ACC has repeatedly ignored corruption scandals tantamount to daylight robbery, the Judicial Service Commission targets judges whose rulings threaten the executive agenda一a constitutional subversion unfolding in real time.
The appointment and removal of institutional heads nominally fall under parliamentary control; therefore, when presidents command parliamentary majorities, this check too becomes meaningless.
Having delegated their power through the ballot, voters have found themselves effectively locked out of meaningful oversight for the entire five-year term, trapped in a democratic vacuum where mid-course correction is constitutionally impossible. Citizens seeking merely to hold their government accountable have had no formal recourse until the next election cycle. By that point, frustration with this enforced powerlessness has typically reached such a breaking point that voters have seen no option but wholesale government replacement, a cycle that has defined Maldivian democracy since 2008.
Article 115 of the Maldives Constitution一“Powers and responsibilities of the President”一has been likened to ‘Aladdin's Lamp’一and for good reason. Like the fabled lamp of Agrabah, this provision has become a vessel through which presidents can summon near-limitless power. Successive leaders have interpreted it with astonishing breadth, using it to justify direct control down to the most granular levels of governance.
These constitutional ambiguities have provided a blueprint for abuse. Over the past decade, each president has exploited these inherent weaknesses in increasingly predictable ways. Whether through Yameen's brazen authoritarianism, the puppeteering of Solih, or Muizzu's chameleon act, the result remains一strongman rule (and it has always been men).
The pattern is unmistakable: Presidents treat the entire government as bargaining chips in their political game. They transform the state apparatus into personal fiefdoms, operating under a naked ‘to the winner the spoils’ mindset, and doling out favours and jobs for votes and loyalty. They accumulate unsustainable public debt, either dismissing fiscal warnings from the central bank or politicising it entirely一leaving taxpayers to foot the bill.
Since 2008, every president has come to power through coalition politics一a concept fundamentally alien to presidential systems, which were not designed for shared governance. Presidents have repeatedly forged these necessary alliances to win elections, only to then discard their coalition partners once in office.
Nasheed fired Gasim, Yameen jailed all his allies, and Ibrahim Mohamed Solih alienated his majority party to appease smaller coalition partners. And now Muizzu, after using his old party to ascend to power, not only promptly executed a hostile takeover of it, but dissolved the party altogether.
The most dramatic consequence of this structural weakness was the 7 February 2012 coup that toppled President Nasheed's government, exposing not just the undemocratic proclivities of those who masterminded it but also revealing the system's inability to handle coalition breakdowns.
With a parliamentary system, governments are formed by those who enter the Majlis with public confidence, measured in votes and seats.
We cannot dismiss the parliamentary system of governance. To reject it on partisan grounds rather than on merit serves no one. Examining these constitutional crisis points against the parliamentary alternative shows key advantages worth serious consideration:
The signs of democratic decay are increasingly difficult to ignore. The system has consistently failed to advance the status of Maldivian women, the island communities, and marginalised groups, while youth disengagement from political processes worsens. Money has become the dominant factor in politics, unmistakably reflecting a collective resignation where short-term opportunism has supplanted long-term hope.
What began as a promising democratic experiment has unravelled through successive election cycles, culminating in today's reality of rampant corruption and unprecedented economic decline一a far cry from the democratic vision that inspired constitutional reform.
The system has consistently failed to advance the status of Maldivian women, the island communities, and marginalised groups, while youth disengagement from political processes worsens.
The vanguards of our democracy appear incapable of reversing this widespread cynicism. The main opposition party, MDP, shows no evidence of any soul-searching about their electoral defeat despite having commanded every conceivable advantage. Their political energy is consumed by internal squabbles over their 2028 presidential ticket rather than articulating policy.
The government, for its part, appears more topsy-turvy than a playground seesaw, lurching from position to position with no clear direction一no one here can tell you where this government stands on a single issue. This government has failed to find friends either domestically or internationally, leaving it unable to chart a coherent path out of staggering public debt and a ruinous economic crisis.
Something has to give. As we watch our current system strain under the weight of its contradictions, the cost of maintaining the status quo becomes increasingly untenable.
It is time to start the debate. The choice before us is clear: adapt our system of governance to better serve our democratic aspirations, or watch as our hard-won democracy slowly erodes under the pressure of its structural flaws. Maldivians deserve this debate and the chance to make this choice.
Eva Abdulla is the Chairperson of The Maldives Policy Think Tank.
The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.
Eva Abdulla, Chairperson of The Maldives Policy Think Tank, is the former Deputy Speaker of the Maldives, and was a three- term elected member of ...
Read More +
PREV
