Lesson from the Maldives: Listen to the people

Winds of change are sweeping closer home, what with the events that have enveloped the Maldives, leaving that country in turmoil this week. These were the culmination of months of protests and agitation, constitutional complications which even President Mahinda Rajapaksa went to check on back in July of 2010, and eventually some strong-arm tactics that backfired on the perpetrator, Maldivian President Mohamed Nasheed who had to step down on Tuesday.

People's movements have become fashionable all over the world since the 'Arab Spring' of last year. Not only have they brought down dictators from their pedestals in the Arab world, even in Europe (where a few decades ago People's movements brought down the 'Iron Curtain' in socialist Eastern Europe and opened up democracies) and the United States of America, people have taken to the streets to protest the evils of capitalism.

Our Political Editor gives a graphic account of the events that unfolded in Sri Lanka's second closest neighbour. The archipelago consisting of hundreds of islands saw an economic boom from the 1980s onwards. With Colombo as a launching pad, its tourism grew plentyfold over the years. Though limited in numbers because of geographic constraints, the Maldives has outshone Sri Lanka as a high value upmarket tourist destination. That this economic growth came during a period of political stability under President Mamoon Abdul Gayoom is a fact, but there was no ignoring the presence of undercurrents. The Maldivian people were not happy with his authoritarian rule and lack of democracy in the country. Former President Nasheed was one of the frontline civil rights activists who campaigned for People's Power and helped usher in multi-party democracy to the Maldives. On Tuesday, though, he was consumed by those very forces he helped unleash against President Gayoom - the people.

Once ensconced in high office, President Nasheed seems to have made the same mistakes so many in his position succumb to. Surrounded by a coterie of hangers-on, and insulated from the people, he lost touch with public opinion, and relied more and ever more on the security forces to defend his administration and artificially prop it up. Ultimately, he accused them of turning their guns on him. Often the very 'catchers' who egged him on, even when wrongs were committed, blurred his original vision for the Maldives. Insensitive to public opinion and public remorse, he was humiliatingly flung from office and thrown to the streets to face the consequences yet to come.

There may well be other factors behind the ouster of the former Maldivian President. Unlike the anti-us anti-west Arab world, President Nasheed was pro-west, and seems to have paid the price for his liberal thinking. It was also amusing to see Amnesty International, the global human rights organisation protesting on behalf of Mr. Nasheed when the people of the Maldives, or at least a formidable section of them, are accusing him of human rights violations and dictatorial acts while in office.

Yet, the underlining reality is that whatever forces are at work to pull the rug out from under an incumbent in any country, they require the support of a majority of the people of that country. There must be a groundswell of public opinion that has built already to be exploited either by local forces, or foreign elements, legitimately or otherwise. Without that groundswell the only method of ousting an incumbent is by way of a military coup, an assassination or an implosion within the ruling party. These are the realities of politics and Mr. Nasheed is complaining as an afterthought that he was driven from office at gun-point and not by public opinion.

South Asia is very much in turmoil at this very moment. President Nasheed was Chairman of SAARC (South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation) at the time of his ouster But we see in all South Asia, different arms of the state; the Executive, the Legislature, the Judiciary, and the Fourth Estate, the Media competing with each other, not allowing one arm alone, particularly the Executive, to run the country the way it wants.

In Pakistan, after many years, the Judiciary and the Bar together with the Media have joined hands to challenge both martial laws and dictatorial rule even if by elected political parties. The Prime Minister has to present himself before the Supreme Court tomorrow (Monday) on contempt charges over the immunity of the President who in turn is being investigated for corruption. The new democratic Pakistan is waiting to emerge into the modern world. For almost the first time since the Generals took over the running of the country many decades ago, the military is now fighting for a place in Pakistani society. President Rajapaksa would have seen for himself the democratisation pangs that the people of Pakistan are going through as he visited the country this week, and the yearning people have for strong democratic institutions rather than authoritarian and corrupt rule.

In Bangladesh and Nepal, democratic forces are trying to shake off increasing militarization and corrupt politicians by building institutions. Even in democratic India, there is no end to the thirst of the people for a share in decision-making and good governance. The world witnessed a countrywide people's movement that demanded a Lokpal law aimed at arresting corruption in high places. There was government resistance to it with all kinds of excuses. It was clear as clear can be that the Government in New Delhi was not going to act decisively when allegations cropped up against powerful politicians within its coalition over the issue of mobile telephone licences to operators. It was only when the Courts stepped in that these once powerful politicians ended up in jail. Elected representatives are kept on their toes as a result of vibrant and independent courts and the media in India. This week the Indian Supreme Court took on the powerful Ministry of Defence over a fundamental rights case filed by the sitting Army Commander without buckling under Executive pressure.

No incumbent Head of Government will like these institutions to be interfering in the administration of government, but these institutions are there to play a pivotal role in nation building and good governance. The Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) used the phrase, the need for the "Rule of Law and not the Rule of Men" to highlight the need to build these institutions to be the solid foundation upon which nation-states rest, however unpleasant it may be for those sitting temporarily in high office.

These winds of change that are sweeping in and around South Asia form a powerful message from the people that their sovereignty cannot be limited to periodic elections. They will monitor events in between those elections, and make their voice heard in the citadels of power, even if at a cost.