The Silent Revolution

The Maldives are world-famous as an idyllic luxury tourist destination. But beyond the paradise beaches, political unrest and the fight for democratic rights are gathering pace. Rebecca Cork reports

New precedents in world politics have emerged since the bipolar struggles of the Cold War. Powerful states, fighting a violent ideological armed struggle, are developing a new language of universal human rights to legitimise state intervention in order to maintain their own security. Iraq and Afghanistan, most noticeably, have set the precedent for “humanitarian” intervention that is military and political in nature. When the right to invade a country is claimed in the language of human rights, the basic unit in world politics is no longer the state; individuals can look beyond the state to global legal frameworks such as the UN.

Whatever implications there are for the fight against terrorism and intervention in the Middle East, there is a significant side effect to this new, legalistic approach. If rights become universal, individuals are able to claim these rights of their government and be protected against the actions of government; sovereignty of states no longer trumps international law. While the media gaze remains focused on ideological struggles between the West and East, it is easy to overlook conflict that does not impact on the international stage or global security. The Republic of Maldives, however, has seen dramatic changes as a result of an increasing number of individuals claiming their rights of the government, including freedom from torture, freedom of association and freedom of speech. Tucked away in the Indian Ocean, a secluded holiday destination, Maldives is not usually associated with dictators, brutal repression and torture, but the reality is less than idyllic.

Maldives is an archipelago of more than 1,100 islands dotted across the equator. The country, although it has never experienced colonisation, has known increasingly brutal dictatorial rule since 1968. At that time the incumbent president, Ibrahim Nasir, introduced a political system that would appear democratic to curious outsiders but effectively took away the powers of the individual to participate in the running of the country. In November 1978, Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, a former permanent representative of Maldives to the UN, was elected as the new president and has remained in power through six re-elections for consecutive five-year terms, in a nominally democratic voting system that allows only one candidate and involves intimidation and vote spoiling. The last election was in 2003, and the three years since have seen some of the most significant changes in the constitution since President Nasir’s government. These have coincided with the rise of universal human rights law.

The reform movement has grown from a grassroots struggle with a dictatorial state in which the media is state owned and all independent press is shut down, where the government uses taxes to keep the opposition powerless and provides no infrastructure or education for remote islanders, and where the President’s unlimited power lies in his position as both the Head of Government and Head of State. The President appoints members of the Cabinet and the Judiciary, as well as eight of the 50 Majlis (Parliament) members. The President is also the Commander-in-Chief of the Maldivian National Defence Force. His considerable power extends to control over a lucrative tourist trade and traditional fishing industry. Tourism has seen the GDP per capita almost triple since the 1980s, though there is little evidence of this filtering down to a largely malnourished population existing on less than $1 per day.

In September 2003, the death of an inmate in one of Maldives’ isolated prisons sparked riots in the capital city of Malé. Serving a sentence for drug offences, he was beaten to death by National Security Service (now Maldivian National Defence Force) personnel. Rather than declare the death an accident, the coroner was persuaded by human rights activists to delay the verdict and leak photos of the beaten and tortured body. Riots began in the prison, resulting in the death of three inmates and injuring 17. As the public heard of the death, unrest spread to Malé; police stations, government buildings and vehicles were targeted. The government declared an unprecedented state of emergency in Malé and nearby islands. The day has proven to be a catalyst for change and is hailed symbolically as the day that Maldives woke from its acceptance of a dictatorial rule.

Since 2003, a generation of Maldivians has begun to claim its rights. Oppositional political parties have sprung up, working from abroad until the President was forced to allow their registration. Political and social tensions in the country became more acute, and in February 2004 a rally organised by members of the then banned Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) was halted by the security forces. Arrests and torture were publicised from outside Maldives by new NGO groups and Maldivians in exile.

International groups such as Amnesty International, the BBC and a Commission of EU representatives all made their way to the Maldives to observe and interview. As a result, the President announced an unprecedented and promising programme of political reforms in June 2004. These proposals included providing greater independence to the judiciary, separating the powers of the head of state and limiting the power of the president. Under the proposals, the President would lose the right to appoint eight members of the 50-seat parliament, the mechanism that previously guaranteed his nomination for the post. The President’s Office issued a statement in May 2005 outlining “Proposed Constitutional Amendments” as a roadmap for reform. These would address certain amended “freedoms”, affecting free speech, custodial rights and the right to form political parties.

International scrutiny, while persuading the President to speak of reform and begin constitutional changes, is limited in its effectiveness. Individuals in the political opposition, such as human rights activist Jennifer Latheef, and independent media, such as Minivan News, allege the President has allowed periods of greater freedom of expression when it has been politically convenient within the domestic context – for instance, to allow for critical reporting against opponents – only to re-impose restrictions when the international gaze has moved on. Minivan News has reported that journalists continue to be arrested and threatened.

In addition to claiming their rights of the government, oppositional groups have made use of communication technology to startling effect. Gatherings of thousands of Maldivians have been managed with the use of SMS messaging, and exiled MDP members have organised conferences, votes and constitutional agreements through the Internet. A radio station is broadcast from Europe – initially recorded in the UK in 2004 but currently based in Sri Lanka – with journalists working across Maldives. Government techniques to block the frequency have proven unsuccessful and the broadcasts are now available online. Networks have sprung up to highlight the number of detainees in police custody without charge, using Internet phones and websites to communicate details and photographic images as a record of police brutality. Reporters Without Borders, among other groups, have been vocal supporters of Maldivian reform journalists.

Although the need for change has been accepted by the Maldivian government, the struggle for human rights continues. In order to appease NGO groups and observers, politicians make promises that allow them to maintain hegemony over the process. In June 2005, for example, the Majlis voted unanimously to allow multi-party politics and enabled parties to register for the first time. In response, the President formed his party and began to intimidate and arrest the leaders of opposition parties. Since the President set up a Human Rights Commission in July 2004, it has been heavily criticised by Maldivians and NGOs abroad. In September, Maldives signed the Optional Protocol to the UN Convention against Torture but reports of police brutality and torture persist. Tensions between the political opposition and government continue, with the roadmap for reform a point of serious contention. The situation, however unstable, is more promising than that of three years ago when habitual state violence went unreported and opposition was combated with brutal torture and murder, only miles away from the beaches of luxury tourist destinations. What the future holds for Maldives depends to an extent on the continued attention of the international community. The first and most important change, however, is in the minds of the Maldivian public – they are aware for the first time that they are able to claim their rights and that it is the government that should provide them.


This article is reproduced with the kind permission of Intersec magazine.