Comment: Vote "no" in the referendum

War at every doorstep, but the only cost being cut is elections.

Artwork: Dosain

2 hours ago

Yesterday marked one month since the United States and Israel launched strikes on Iran. The Maldives gets its fuel primarily from Oman and the UAE, much of its food through the Gulf, and most of its tourists through Dubai, Doha and Abu Dhabi. Every one of these cities and countries sits in the heart of the war. India and Sri Lanka, which supply much of the country’s remaining food and fuel, are themselves dependent on Middle Eastern oil. There is no supply line into this country that this war has not reached.

Across the rest of South Asia, governments have moved to cut spending, restrict fuel use, and prepare their populations for what is coming. The Muizzu administration has done none of this. Instead, it continues channelling all public spending into the upcoming election.

On 4 April, when Maldivians vote in local council elections, they will also be asked to vote yes or no in a referendum. The referendum proposes combining two elections that are currently held separately: the presidential election and the parliamentary election. The referendum asks whether they should be combined and held together.

The government makes two main claims to sell this. First, that it will cut costs. Second, that it will be more democratic. Neither argument holds up.

Cost-cutting and strengthening democracy are arguments that are easy on the ears, easy to sell. The government knows this. They are banking on the assumption that Maldivians will be easily swayed the moment someone says "cut costs, strengthen democracy." But a good slogan is not policy.

Take the government’s cost argument first. A government that has not cut a single cent of its own spending in the middle of a war cannot credibly claim that combining elections is about saving money. One month into this war, the argument is not only weak, it is now preposterous and insulting.

Even before the war, the cost argument did not stand up. Anyone who has paid even the slightest attention to how the state has been run for the last two and a half years can point to where this government can cut costs. The bloated political appointments. The wasteful state-owned enterprises. The jobs created for loyalists. The contracts awarded without competitive bidding. The vanity projects no one asked for, such as race tracks when what people need is housing. The tone deaf and wasteful Eid celebrations when this was a sombre Eid for Muslims everywhere, in the middle of a war, with Muslims from Gaza to Iran to Beirut under bombardment. Eid does not need lights to be celebrated.

There is no shortage of fat to trim. And yet the first place this government chose to tighten the belt is elections. Elections are about democracy, and democracy is never where you cut corners. If the price of a separate election is what it costs to give voters a second chance to judge their government, that is money well spent.

The strengthening democracy argument too falls apart the moment you think about it for more than thirty seconds. From a government that abused its parliamentary supermajority to muzzle the press, dismantle decentralisation, hollow out independent commissions, and turn the Majlis itself into a rubber stamp, the claim of strengthening democracy is, let us be honest, laughable.

So this is what combining elections actually does:

It makes it easier for the president and the ruling party. One election means one campaign, one mobilisation, one set of resources. All the money, all the jobs, all the contracts, all the patronage, directed at winning everything at once. Making it easier for the ruling party to win and hold power is not the voter’s problem to solve.

It reduces voter deliberation. Presidential elections and parliamentary elections ask two fundamentally different questions. One asks who should govern the nation. The other asks who should hold that government accountable on behalf of my island, my community, my constituency. These are not the same decision and they deserve separate consideration. When forced to make both at once, voters do not weigh each on its merits.

It undermines checks and balances. The Constitution separates these two elections deliberately: elect a president, then, later, give the people an opportunity to assess how that president is governing, and to elect a parliament that can hold that president accountable. The current six-month gap between the two elections is already too short. But at least it exists, and at least voters get a second chance. Combining the two elections eliminates even that narrow window.

It hands the president the parliament. The system already favours the president. Nearly every single time since 2008, the president’s party has swept the Majlis. Parliamentary elections are already held when the president is still in the honeymoon period and the opposition is demoralised. Parliamentary candidates ride in on the president’s popularity rather than being judged on their own merit and constituency work. Combining the two elections only makes this worse, and produces a parliament filled with legislators who owe their seats to the president, not their voters.

It is a permanent change to the democratic system. This is not a minor administrative adjustment. Nor is this a vote for a candidate or a party that can be reversed in five years. It is a fundamental restructuring of how our democracy works.

In short, it concentrates power. For a people that fought thirty years of autocracy, this is a clear and familiar red flag.

If Maldivians are disillusioned and frustrated with politics, and with political parties, it is because politics has given them every reason to be. The corruption, the inefficiency, the broken promises, the sense that whoever is in power, nothing changes. But the answer to public frustration and apathy is not to reduce the number of times the public gets to speak. It is to give them more reason to. The choice of whether to go out and vote belongs to the voter. Robbing them of that opportunity is not the government’s to make.

We know reform is needed. After 18 years of democratic experience, we need to debate whether a presidential system still serves us best. We need stronger separation of powers and more robust checks and balances. We need to ask how the system can better serve the most vulnerable, how it can better capture and punish corruption, how it can make power more accountable and less concentrated. That conversation is long overdue. But that is not what is on offer here. What we are being asked to vote on in this referendum is not reform.

This government is also steamrolling the process. A decision of this magnitude requires public deliberation, debate, and time. None has been given. The Majlis was not allowed time to scrutinise the proposal. Hardly any resources have been directed at public awareness of what this change means. Cluttering the streets with banners does not count as voter education. Voters are left to read up for themselves, and when so many are already exhausted with politics, few will bother. Ask anyone on the street to explain what this referendum is actually asking them to decide, and most would not be able to.

On April 4, when you pick up the referendum ballot, vote no to combining elections. A ‘no’ buys you time, time to understand what is actually being asked, what is actually at stake, and what this country stands to lose. Multiple elections exist so that the people get to speak more than once. At a moment when this government should be protecting every household in this country from the effects of a war, it has chosen the campaign over the country. Do not hand it more power and fewer elections to face. Vote no on the referendum.

Eva Abdulla is a former deputy speaker of parliament and three-term MDP lawmaker, who represented the Galolhu North constituency in Malé.

Editor's note: The constitutional amendment to hold the presidential and parliamentary elections on the same day is the subject of legal challenges at the Supreme Court. A Bar Council panel discussion on Saturday heard from former attorneys general and legal scholars with opinion divided on whether the change alters the constitution's basic structure. Former MDP chairman Fayyaz Ismail argued the case against combining elections in these pages earlier this month. More recently, Housing Minister Dr Abdulla Muththalib made the case for the amendment, while former Supreme Court Justice Husnu Al Suood argued against it in an op-ed on Sunday. For a Dhivehi-language analysis of both sides, see Dr Hassan Hameed's essay.

All comment pieces are the sole view of the author and do not reflect the editorial policy of the Maldives Independent. If you would like to write an opinion piece, please send proposals to editorial@maldivesindependent.com.

Discussion

No comments yet. Be the first to share your thoughts!

No comments yet. Be the first to join the conversation!

Join the Conversation

Sign in to share your thoughts under an alias and take part in the discussion. Independent journalism thrives on open, respectful debate — your voice matters.

Support independent journalism

Explore more

Maldives News

Comment: Vote "no" in the referendum

Discussion

Join the Conversation

Support independent journalism

Explore more

Related Stories