Destination paradise: An ethical choice?

(This article was edited by thetravelrag.com)

Paradise or a political playground for a bully in the sun? Rebecca Cork reports on recent events in the Maldives.

In September, with the Indian sun beating down belligerently from above, citizens rallied on the island of Male’, the capital island of the paradisiacal Republic of Maldives. It was the first time in recent memory they had actively taken their concerns to the streets, the seemingly unjust death of a prisoner the cause for public alarm. Riots ensued and a small mob managed to burn government buildings before the N.S.S, the National Security Service, was able to dispel the unrest.

For a peaceful Islamic country where people rarely even raise their voices, this was indeed a significant day in the history of the atoll islands, over 1,100 scattered over the Equator in the midst of the Indian Ocean. The threat of tanks and tear gas ensured a curfew for two nights as the rebellion was put down.

From neighbouring islands, it was impossible to gather more accurate information before rumours became exaggerated and truth and fiction blurred.

The Republic of Maldives is governed by President Maumoon Gayoum who has ruled over the nation for 25 years. His contented image beams down from oversized frames in every Maldivian office, rather like a suited Castro. His influence over even the remotest islands is strong; it would not occur to educated people such as teachers and civil servants to voice opinions against him. His control over the media is a primary cause of this – the only broadcast the day after the riots in Male’ was an address given by the president. There were no details about the riots, the cause of the rebellion, or the measures used to dispel it. No televised pictures were allowed. Web pages containing the dead prisoner’s face were quickly closed down. An internet resource, www.maldivesculture.com , was banned and became unavailable in the Maldives for its critical content in which the Republic is described as a ‘Benevolent Dictatorship’.

Such repressive control ensures the President an overwhelming victory year after year. However elections are looming and the country remains unstable as the hot winds of change begin to blow with more force across the island nation.

From the foreigner’s perspective, the election process appears arbitrary. On the 25th September the Citizen’s Majlis, with two members from each Atoll and eight members nominated by the President, re-elected the President. His next hurdle to continued power is to win a simple majority vote in a referendum. Only if he does not pass this will another candidate be put forward. Following the events in September, there is some hope that his majority is not as secure as for the past quarter century.

Discontent is growing. So what changes might occur in this next referendum? With the absence of a known opposition, islanders with no political education will not be aware of their choice; to these people, most of which have never known any other President, the choice is the current President. It is commonly believed that undesirable voting slips are left uncounted or deemed ‘spoilt’. To vote actively against the President, Maldivians have to travel to the capital rather than vote locally. Potential opposition candidates must watch, powerless, for a chance to come forward; they have in the past been imprisoned with no reasonable explanation.

The gulf between the education of the islanders and those who live in Male’, or those with access to a foreign education and media, is great. Typical of developing countries, the simplicity of life does not allow for the development of radical ideas, of feeling of political discontent or the desire to create an organised opposition. More pressing matters fill up the week – the birth of a child, the running of the local school, the weekly return of husbands and sons after the fishing is done. There is no inclination to find fault with the status quo at a higher level. Add to this the controlling nature of an island despot and media censorship and the result is a mild authoritarian state, where the people are largely unaware of the injustices they suffer.

Resort islands remain unaffected. The uniqueness of a country of islands enables the isolated holiday destinations to be entirely separate from those inhabited by small communities.

As the September dramas unfolded on Male’, honeymooners remained in their waterside villas gazing out at the turquoise waters; the protests went unheard.

On the inhabited island of Malhos, however, a crowd gathered around the island’s two phone boxes as people tried to contact family in Male’, a mild panic spreading through their conversations.

It may have been, by international standards, a small skirmish on a remote island, but to these people it was the first sign of dissatisfaction in a system in which they have always believed. There is an understandable ignorance of the culture of these people and their liberal, pick-and-mix Islam. Perhaps if the country were rich in oil, or a fundamentalist seat of international terrorist action, the riots would have received a more coverage nearer the front of international papers. As it stands, any interest of the world press remains in the travel pages, existing mainly because Maldives is a tropical holiday paradise, and not because of the injustice with which the islands are governed.

For many travellers, this blissful ignorance negates the need for a conscientious decision while at the travel agent. But for the aware traveller it again brings to the fore the issue of travelling to countries – Myanmar and Bhutan are high profile examples – who remain under the control of leaders who do not represent their people nor provide the liberty we enjoy.

Perhaps the only way to register opposition to Gayoum is with that vote of liberty when booking at the travel desk.