Expert Speak Raisina Debates
Published on Jul 21, 2021
A divided moderate constituency, including existing and new political parties, can weaken them collectively vis-à-vis a united extremist alliance.
Maldives: Nasheed’s call to end extremists’ dominance in elections can cut both ways In what could be surmised as a belated yet welcome first step, Parliament Speaker Mohammed ‘Anni’ Nasheed has conceded that all political parties in the country have depended on ‘extremist votes’ in the past to come to power. By extension, he indicated that his recent call to work with jailed former President Abdulla Yameen’s rival Progressive Party of Maldives–People’s National Congress (PPM-PNC) combine was aimed at all moderate elements uniting to render the extremists irrelevant in the nation’s electoral politics. Nasheed charged the incumbent government of President Ibrahim ‘Ibu’ Solih of the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP), led by him, of allowing the religion-centric Adhaalath Party (AP) to ‘monopolise the government.’ He blamed the Solih leadership for withdrawing support to the government-sponsored ‘hate-crime’ bill, succumbing to pressures from extremists, from within and outside.

As has been his wont ever since Nasheed began targeting his leadership and government, President Solih has maintained a stoic silence.

In this context, Nasheed said the government should prove its mettle by backing the bill when it comes up for vote in Parliament. In a tweet, in the name of ‘Alex Ahmed,’ his known alias, Nasheed, who is recuperating in the United Kingdom after medical treatment for the blast injuries in Malé and Germany, also found fault with the police investigations into the 6 May targeted bomb blast against him. His view in this regard is shared by many others. Nasheed said that leadership is not only about ‘diplomacy and compromise.’ It is even more about ‘strength and steadfastness.’ He implied that the incumbent lacked them all. As has been his wont ever since Nasheed began targeting his leadership and government, President Solih has maintained a stoic silence.

It is unclear if that was the reason for him as the party chief, to shun junior allies who had served the MDP’s purposes in the presidential elections of 2008, ’13, and ’18 in the subsequent parliamentary polls on all three occasions.

The Speaker, who is also the nation’s first ‘democracy President,’ elected in 2008, said electoral alliances vitiated the spirit of the Constitution, passed at the time. It is unclear if that was the reason for him as the party chief, to shun junior allies who had served the MDP’s purposes in the presidential elections of 2008, ’13, and ’18 in the subsequent parliamentary polls on all three occasions.

Allies back Solih

According to MDP insiders, the allies have felt used by the Nasheed-led MDP, making it imperative now for President Solih not to lose them. The AP, whose leader Sheikh Imran Abdullah is the Home Minister, in its rebuttal has dubbed Nasheed, ‘selfish’ and denied allegations against the party. The AP, or religious scholars who formed the party after the 2008 Constitution legitimised political parties, was first to raise its voice against the then well-entrenched President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom (1978-2008). Having branded Gayoom as an early extremist in the eyes of the less-knowledgeable sections of the international community, the MDP in its formative years and even earlier, could not but join hands with the AP and other minor parties, to deny the former, during the re-election in 2008.

The JP has polled decisive vote shares in the past (15–25 per cent), and the three allies of the MDP can upset presidential expectations of others in a closely-fought contest without being a challenger.

Now heading the Maumoon Reforms Movement (MRM), after losing his PPM title, cadre and voters to estranged half-brother Yameen, Gayoom has since declared ‘full support’ for the government, of which he is a partner. The fourth coalition partner, namely, the Jumhooree Party (JP) of businessman-politician Gasim Ibrahim, too, has since reaffirmed support to the Solih leadership, though two of five party MPs, including former Defence Minister, Col Ahmed Nazim (retd), quit recently to float a new party. The JP has polled decisive vote shares in the past (15–25 per cent), and the three allies of the MDP can upset presidential expectations of others in a closely-fought contest without being a challenger. Col Nazim’s new party is yet to be registered, and its support-base is yet to be tested. Possibilities of the kind had forced the MDP, under Nasheed’s command, to seek them out after elected, rather than the other way out.

From drift to rift?

Over the past months, MDP affairs have been moving from a clear drift towards a possible rift. Solih’s silence may have contributed to the crisis, centred on Nasheed’s outpourings. His supporters claim that Solih’s silence (alone) has helped to keep the MDP ship afloat and the alliance intact. But they too are now concerned that Nasheed is pushing the party to a point of no return. Nasheed also assured recently that he will not allow the party to split. In a statement, the MDP too said that the issues between the “Big Two” ‘can be resolved.’ However, individual voices from within the party and outside have begun coming out in Solih’s favour. The list includes former MDP Chairpersons, Dr Ibrahim Didi and Moosa Manik.

Solih’s silence may have contributed to the crisis, centred on Nasheed’s outpourings.

Though they do not command much support, Didi said that Nasheed’s actions have ‘increased support for Solih.’ Moosa Manik, now not in the party, went further to claim that ‘Nasheed has lost control over the MDP.’ A minister, Mohamed Maleeh Jamal, who was sacked at Nasheed’s instance and who left the JP ally earlier, has now returned to the PPM fold and said that there was ‘no democracy’ in the MDP. It did not say how, when, or who amongst them could take the initiative or play mediator. The current MDP structure does not allow for one from within, unless a group of youthful leaders from the two camps join hands to ‘save the party.’ Also, even in the theoretical possibility of Solih talking the AP out of the government, as he had sacked other ministers at Nasheed’s instance, it may only serve a limited purpose for re-uniting the MDP. So could any possible re-assurance from him to back the hate-crime bill in Parliament and outside. The problem flows from the fact that the majority of the MDP is unwilling to call a monthly meeting of the Coordination Committee of the ruling coalition, where issues could be discussed and decisions arrived at. Despite the resolve to meet at least a month, no such meeting was held to discuss the hate-crime bill, after the one earlier in the year, which itself was only the second meeting after Solih came to power in November 2018.

The current MDP structure does not allow for one from within, unless a group of youthful leaders from the two camps join hands to ‘save the party.’

Altruist, but…

Nasheed’s supporters, both within the MDP and outside, attest to what they say is his altruist intentions on keeping extremists at bay, beginning with electoral politics, which alone gives them the clout and staying power outside of religious discourses. His critics in the party are not convinced. To them, this is the latest, not necessarily the last, weapon in his hand, after corruption and demand for parliamentary scheme. According to them, Nasheed’s targeting of the AP should have waited until he had given a semblance of a united MDP to cadres and voters alike. His seeking Yameen’s help should have come much later. By seeking out Yameen’s help for his twin-projects of sidelining extremists and introducing parliamentary scheme before taking his party-led government, President Solih and even the MDP general council into confidence has weakened the party and his own position within, they say.

The blame for it all, starting with MDP losing power and popularity despite a two-thirds majority (65/87) in the current Parliament, could lay at the doorsteps of the Solih-Nasheed combo.

By putting them all on their head, and presenting them to Yameen, instead of his own party first, Nasheed, they say, has weakened the party and its presidential poll prospects without the former having to do anything. It is independent of Yameen obtaining an acquittal from the Supreme Court in the multi-million-dollar ‘MMPRC scam,’ for which the lower courts have handed down a five-year jail term. If not acquitted, Yameen cannot contest the elections and field another. Independent observers submit that Nasheed’s call to Yameen did not mean that they should become electoral allies or contest on the same side of the political divide. Instead, he only meant to have the ‘extremists’ at bay. Granted that all ‘moderate political parties’ (?), including Yameen’s PPM-PNC combine, keep ‘extremists’ away, there is the other likelihood of all conservative and radical groups coming together and challenging the moderates in the presidential polls with a common candidate. A divided moderate constituency, including existing and new political parties, can weaken them collectively vis-à-vis a united extremist alliance. It will be worse still if the MDP remained divided. In the interim, it can give fresh life to Yameen’s PPM-PNC combine. The blame for it all, starting with MDP losing power and popularity despite a two-thirds majority (65/87) in the current Parliament, could lay at the doorsteps of the Solih-Nasheed combo. A weakened MDP in such a scenario — and a democratic polity, by extension — could well take a long, long time to revive, even if democracy survives the onslaught.
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.

Contributor

N. Sathiya Moorthy

N. Sathiya Moorthy

N. Sathiya Moorthy is a policy analyst and commentator based in Chennai.

Read More +