:: Dhivehi Observer :: Peoples Press ::

Sad but True

By Mohamed Ashfag – 19th July 2004

Thus far in the calling for political reform, it is now an undisputable and an observable fact, that a very large proportion of public are keen and desperate to see real and not nominal changes in the politics of our nation. Any person who have made the slightest attempt to either attend the pro-reform seminars or obtained the videos or CDs of the said seminars by calling 322155, would have cleared any ambiguous perceptions they might have had with regard to reform ideas being vested only in the hearts of a ‘radical’ few. Clearly the desire for reform triggers passionate hope among the nation’s youth and elders alike. So is it among the religious hardliners and the liberal activists, among the prominent and the ordinary. It is such a beautiful prospect to see such diversity of Maldivian public gathering peacefully to voice out their common goal of achieving political reform. Then, why are the reform-averters trying so very hard to prevent effective political reform from becoming a reality?

Why should anybody attempt so hard to deny the people from what is rightfully theirs? Questions and more questions! The sad reality is that our present political system does not have a mechanism with in which official answers can be obtained.

Today, the 19^th July 2004, the inaugural meeting of People’s Special Majlis was held and to the shock of everyone 24 MPs walked out of the session in protest of the manner by which the temporary Speaker of the session Mr. Abdullah Hameed attempted to elect a President (Speaker) to the People’s Special Majlis. According to MPs the approach favoured by Mr. Abdullah Hameed, Minister of Atolls Development, was in contradiction with the article 133 of the present constitution of the Republic of Maldives. Further it is worthy to note that the favoured candidate of reform-averters to the post of President (Speaker) of People’s Special Majlis, Minister of Justice Mr. Ahmed Zahir is not an elected MP of the people but rather an appointed MP by President Gayyoom. Today’s incident very clearly depict the reason behind the numerous calls to facilitate the live broadcasting of Special Majlis sessions, which is yet to get constructive acknowledgement by the authorities. Moreover, in an interview President Gayyoom on 15^th July 2004, has clearly highlighted the importance of constitutional amendments to the public at large by stating that he believes that each and every Maldivian citizen should have an opinion to offer.

The common man is becoming increasingly doubtful about the sincerity of the constitutional amendments with numerous incidents that evoke nothing but suspicion.

Minister of Justice, Mr. Ahmed Zahir was rejected in the People’s Majlis elections in 1999 by South Huvadhoo Atoll people after serving as an MP for 15 years for this atoll and consequently was appointed as an MP by President Gayyoom. With the impartment of President Gayyoom's views on political reform on 9^th June 2004, many reformers organized number of seminars with the objectives of obtaining public opinion and generating political awareness among people. There was not even a single known seminar which was organized by Mr. Zahir nor did he attend any of the seminars. This demonstrates the real gap between the nominated candidate for Speaker of People’s Special Majlis, Mr. Zahir and public of the Maldives. While we, the people, respect the legal right and capacity by which a Speaker is elected by the members of People’s Special Majlis, it is the hope of people to elect a Speaker who has a close affiliation with the public. The mass gathering of people in front of Presidential Office, I hope, will convey Mr. Zahir the desire of people to have a Speaker whom the people can associate.

The people now believe it is the duty and responsibility of the nation’s Attorney General, to provide legal advice on the adherence to the present constitution by all parties. The legal advice should encourage the respect and dignity due to a written constitution. Furthermore, it should state the present legal status of articles 12, 30 and 31 of our present constitution.

How can we meaningfully re-draft our constitution when the code of conduct stipulated in our present constitution is often than not, ignored or undermined?