Trouble for Muizzu – provided MDP keeps it together

For the first time since the 2019 parliamentary elections – in which MDP secured a historic 65 out of 87 seats – the party’s leadership had come together in a unified national campaign built around a single, disciplined message: all votes for the “thilafaiy,” and a firm No to the proposed synchronisation of presidential and parliamentary elections. 

The unity lasted less than a day. Before all ballot boxes had been counted, Nazeeha Ahmed publicly dismissed the suggestion that any returning faction had contributed to the outcome. 

“The victory is the result of MDP members working in unison. Not because a particular group of people came back. It’s an insult to say otherwise, especially when MDPians worked tirelessly to bring about this result,” former President Ibrahim Mohamed Solih's sister-in-law tweeted.

The remark was widely understood as a pointed critique of former President Mohamed Nasheed and his supporters. That position, however, sits uneasily alongside recent political history. Nasheed and his allies had previously been blamed for the party’s 2023 presidential defeat, accused of fragmenting the vote through the formation of The Democrats and, in doing so, enabling Dr Mohamed Muizzu to come to power. At the time, the argument was straightforward: his departure weakened the party and contributed to its loss.

Now, following his return, his visible presence across major urban constituencies, and the size of the crowds he drew, the suggestion that his role in the victory was negligible appears increasingly difficult to sustain. The contradiction reflects not only a disagreement over credit, but a deeper discomfort within sections of the party about how to reconcile past grievances with present realities.

MDP secured 246 seats to the ruling People's National Congress’s 218, swept all five city councils, and watched the electorate reject the proposed constitutional changes by 68 percent.  The outcome was not merely an electoral success, but a clear and collective response from the electorate that carried both political and symbolic weight.

Across the country, particularly in major population centres, the atmosphere was reminiscent of MDP’s political peak, with large and energetic crowds gathering in numbers that had not been seen in recent years. Nasheed was at the centre of this mobilisation. His campaign across key urban areas appeared to energise supporters and restore a sense of cohesion within a party that had, until recently, seemed divided. For many, this marked the first visible moment of a reassembled MDP following the split.

The results reinforce this picture. In the five cities, which together represent more than half of the national population, the PNC secured just six out of 52 seats, while MDP established working majorities across all city councils. The urban electorate, in effect, delivered a decisive verdict on the government’s performance and direction.

This was further underscored by the vote share, where MDP led with 42.9 percent against PNC’s 38.9 percent. Taken together with the resounding defeat of the proposed concurrent elections, the numbers point to more than a routine electoral swing; they reflect a broader rejection of the government’s political approach.

The MDP’s internal strife became more visible during the post-election celebrations, particularly at the rally held on April 6, 2026. What might have been expected to consolidate unity instead revealed its fragility. Nasheed declined to attend after being denied an opportunity to speak, and although the rally proceeded, the episode exposed unresolved sensitivities within the party.

Within a day, these tensions escalated into a more direct confrontation. Interim chairman Abdul Ghafoor Moosa dismissed Legal Director Mohamed Mauroof and congress-elected Deputy Chairperson Ibrahim Waheed, both widely seen as aligned with Fayyaz Ismail. The move immediately raised questions regarding both its legitimacy and its political intent, particularly given the limited mandate through which the interim chair had been appointed.

The response was swift. Concerns over internal governance and procedural authority quickly translated into a no-confidence motion that gathered 55 signatures, indicating that opposition to the decision extended well beyond a narrow faction.

After three days of internal negotiations, the balance of power shifted.

Nasheed emerged with renewed influence, while former President Solih, who had previously commanded significant support within the party’s governing structures, conceded ground. The resulting arrangement reflected a negotiated consolidation rather than a decisive victory by any single faction.

Nasheed was appointed as an advisor and granted a seat in the National Council, while the dismissed officials were reinstated. A new interim leadership structure was agreed, under which the party will be guided by a special committee comprising the current chairperson, party president Abdulla Shahid, Nasheed, Solih, parliamentary group leader MP Ibrahim Nazil, and Fayyaz Ismail, pending the election of a new chairperson.

His return from his role in Ghana as Secretary-General of the Climate Vulnerable Forum therefore appears not only symbolic, but operational, marking a deliberate re-entry into domestic politics.

For President Muizzu, the implications extend beyond the immediate rejection of the referendum.

The scale of the NO vote reflects broader unease with centralisation, executive overreach, and the overall political direction of the administration. Rather than reducing contestation, the proposal appears to have mobilised a wider segment of the electorate, turning what may have been intended as a technical reform into a focal point for expressing dissatisfaction.

Early responses from the government suggest an awareness of this shift. A series of dismissals and forced resignations among political appointees, diplomats and senior officials including minister at the president’s office Ali Arif (also the president’s cousin) and UAE Ambassador Mohamed Hussain Shareef, points to an attempt at recalibration, even as the broader political environment becomes more uncertain.

At the same time, the opposition landscape has shifted. MDP has moved toward internal consolidation, while external actors, including former President Abdulla Yameen, have signalled openness to coordination, effectively recognising MDP’s renewed centrality within opposition politics. 

“We congratulate MDP and note that it now occupies a position of accountability. One need not be in government to serve the people. The public will be watching closely to see how MDP holds this government to account,” Yameen said at his People’s National Front’s weekly rally last Tuesday.

It did not take long for the winds to shift. The judiciary, which had appeared largely dormant amid earlier institutional disruptions, has begun to reassert itself in ways that may prove consequential.

The Supreme Court on Sunday delivered a ruling disqualifying MP Mohamed Sinan from his seat. While the case centred on a decreed debt owed to Maldives Islamic Bank, the court’s reasoning focused on his failure to comply with a prior court-ordered repayment schedule. Although the debt was eventually settled, his failure to adhere to the structured instalment plan, combined with evidence that he had been properly notified and had neither appealed nor challenged the ruling, led the court to conclude that he stood disqualified under the constitution.

The unanimous support of the bench suggests a judiciary that may be seeking to reassert both its authority and institutional credibility after a period of perceived inactivity.

This renewed activity comes against the backdrop of a more contentious and unresolved constitutional question. The Supreme Court had previously accepted a case challenging the validity of the anti-defection law, a move that triggered significant political fallout, including the dismissal of three justices involved in the deliberations. Since then, the case has effectively been parked, leaving a critical legal question suspended at the centre of the political system.

The implications of that pending decision remain significant. If the court were to strike down the anti-defection framework, the consequences for President Muizzu could be profound. The legal constraints that currently bind members of parliament to party lines would weaken, potentially exposing the ruling coalition’s parliamentary supermajority to fragmentation. In a post-election environment already marked by political setbacks, maintaining cohesion within the governing bloc may become increasingly difficult, particularly as opposition actors, including MDP and figures aligned with Abdulla Yameen, look to capitalise on shifting loyalties.

Speaking in parliament on Monday, MDP Chairman Ghafoor, who also holds the seat for Hanimaadhoo, urged PNC MPs to “emancipate themselves,” and warned that the “government cannot keep MPs locked.”

At the same time, the judiciary’s historical tendency to oscillate between assertiveness and accommodation continues to shape expectations. Its role in the coming period will depend not only on legal reasoning, but also on how it responds to increasing political pressure and public scrutiny.

State institutions in the Maldives have, at various points, demonstrated responsiveness to political mobilisation. The experience of the Maldives Supreme Court Crisis 2018 remains instructive, when a sudden assertion of judicial independence triggered a rapid confrontation with the executive and ultimately contributed to a shift in the political landscape.

Taken together, these dynamics suggest that institutional stability in the Maldives is not fixed, but contingent on broader political forces. If current trends continue, President Muizzu may face an increasingly constrained governing environment, characterised by reactive decision-making, heightened contestation, and reduced policy flexibility.

This brings the discussion back to a more fundamental question.

Will MDP take this mandate seriously, or will it repeat a pattern that has defined Maldivian politics since 2008, in which parties campaign on reform but revert to centralised control once in power?

The Maldives remains caught in a recurring cycle marked by limited executive accountability, a frequently compromised parliament, and electoral dynamics driven by short-term incentives. Financial pressures and rising debt only deepen these structural challenges.

Breaking this cycle requires more than electoral success. It requires a willingness to pursue structural reform even when doing so may run counter to immediate political advantage.

MDP has demonstrated that it can win decisively. The real test now is whether it can translate that victory into meaningful change, or whether the country will once again find itself returning to the same starting point.

Saif Fathih is a columnist at the Maldives Independent and a serving member of the Malé City Council for Galolhu North. With his educational background in communications, international studies and public policy, he previously worked as a journalist, editor and public policy advisor, with roles including senior policy director at the ministry of national planning and editor of Ocean Weekly Magazine. Saif began his career as a radio producer and presenter at Minivan Radio, writer for Minivan Daily, and translator for the British High Commission and the European Union Mission to Sri Lanka and the Maldives. He is also the host of Ithuru Vaahaka, the Maldives Independent podcast.