Conning the People: Con-fusing the Cons-titution

NOTE: To start with, this is an article I wrote a few days ago. So the dates don't match. You will have to do the math yourself. The theme of this particular article may seem a bit off, but it's not. I still believe that whatever field you're in, you have to abide by certain morals and ethical codes. As a good Muslim. As a good human. Even if it's politics. A friend of mine told me, 'politics is dirty'. I don't believe it has to be. And I don't believe politicians have to be conmen. Hope you enjoy the read. :)

I'm not sure if it's something Maldivian, like our tuna-based cuisine, or something to do with simply being human. But we Maldivians are an extremely opinionated bunch of people. Especially about politics. It doesn't matter whether you're a fisherman, a farmer, or even a primary school student. But you're bound to have something to say about the decision made by the President, the Attorney General, or the Home Minister yesterday, today, or tomorrow. And whatever opinion that is expressed is most usually not based on, 'This will cause a lot of difficulty for us Fishermen,' or 'farmers like us,' or 'us students'. The arguments are mostly based on something like, 'This is completely against the clear provisions of the Constitution.'

Now, don't get me wrong here. I do believe that it's a good step to familiarize Maldivians to concepts like Constitutionalism and Constitutional Supremacy. It's just that I have a slight issue with the fact that most Maldivians on the street don't really know what the Constitution says. Most Maldivians get their knowledge of the Constitution, not from the text, but rather through whatever is said by the politicians in our beloved respective political parties. And we know full well how the politicians of our beloved country can't help twisting and turning facts and laws around to support their own whims and personal interests.

And it's not like we have to look very far to see the political games these people play.

Just today, the honorable MP elected from Maafannu constituency, Mariya Ahmed Didi, raised a procedural point that gave way to a domino-effect in the first sitting of the newly elected Parliament. While paying tribute to her ability to twist the wordings of the Constitution and confuse the MP presiding over the sitting, Mr. Mohamed Hussain, what with her being a barrister at law in the UK and all, I personally think what she did was just a bit lowly for the position she was in. So she is a barrister. So she is really good at this lawyer stuff. So what? She's not in a court of law trying to win a case for a client of hers. The responsibility that she took upon herself in that sitting was to make the law clear to the people. Not to make it more and more clouded by playing little political jokes in a sitting that was being televised live to all parts of the country.

What she said was this: Article 82(a) of the Constitution provides that the election of the Speaker and his Deputy must be done by way of a secret ballot. Article 87(c) on the other hand denotes that the Speaker or any other person presiding over a sitting of the Majlis should cast his vote only in case there was a tie of votes for and against the particular issue being put up for ballot. Hey, wait! Doesn't that mean the ballot will no longer be secret? Contradiction, right? 'Oh my Gawd!!'

What she didn't mention is this: If there's an apparent contradiction between two provisions in the Constitution, you're supposed to read the two provisions together. Something like, Article 82(a)'s secret ballot is the general rule. And Article 87(c) is talking about an exception. This is a well known rule in constitutional interpretation, and I can bet my soul Mariya knows about it. What with her being a barrister and all. Then what the hell was she doing asking trick questions that were fit to be asked in a Constitutional Law exam paper?!! (Oh, by the way. If it were an exam, I wonder what kind of a grade Mr. Mohamed Hussain would have failed with!)

Now let's do a bit of time travel. Like around a week or so back. President Mohamed Nasheed (the Anni guy not the Kutti dude) appointed a special presidential commission for the purpose of investigating alleged cases of corruption and embezzlement. The very same day that was announced on the media, Mr. Ibrahim Shareef (Ma votaa) of DRP was on TV claiming the appointment made by the President was completely totally unconstitutional. And when you note the fact that Mr. Shareef was acting as a member of the Parliament when the Constitution was drafted and passed, you'd expect him to be a reliable authority in this kind of stuff.

But apparently, even though President Anni was not in the Parliament when the whole amending thingy went on, it turns out he knows this Ganoon Asasee thingy more that Mr. Shareef does. I think Mr. Shareef forgot some parts of it. He must have been quite busy with other stuff, right? Anyhow, President Anni seems to have gone through the Constitution enough to notice that Article 115(o) provides for him to appoint temporary commissions of this sort. Well, waddaya know! He can appoint the commission.

Later on, the DRP tone changed. Last night, the 'outvoted' former President, Mr. Maumoon Abdul Gayyoom appeared on VTV and said that, 'You know what? The President does have the power to appoint a commission for the purpose of investigation. Article 115(o) and all that. But that's only for investigation. Such a commission cannot constitutionally have the right to arrest people or search people's houses or any of these stuff.' Damn, that's so 'hikmat Amalee' and true! So wise, man!

But then again, who the hell is talking about any commission arresting people? Or searching people's houses? Why is he the only person who heard the news?

Lemme tell you, Mr. Maumoon, what really goes on in this 21st century country. These Commission dudes gather something called evidence. And call up the Police and give it to them. They take it to this place called the High Court. The people at the Court, who are called judges, print out and sign this piece of paper called a Warrant. And the Police people in their fancy uniforms and all that go arrest people and search houses.

And, no! President Anni didn't hold a pistol to coerce the Court people into signing the warrant thingy. He doesn't have to. If there's enough evidence to show that there's reasonable suspicion that a person is involved in a criminal activity, the people at the Court are morally and legally bound to issue the warrant. That's how things work in most modern 'dhimaqratiyyah's.

Unfortunately, Maldivians have only been recently introduced to democracy, Constitutionalism and all that. And if politicians go on playing these little political games of theirs with laws and constitutional provisions, they're not doing a huge favor to the newly born Maldivian democracy.

So, yeah. To all the politicians out there. Stop conning the people of the Maldives. And to all the people of Maldives, please don't let these people con you. Enough is goddam enough!

Democracising Islam or Islamising Democracy

The spread of democracy and the rise of Islamic political parties that are willing to work with in the available system in order to reach their goals and achieve the targets set in their manifestos has given rise to a very important question: How compatible is democracy to Islam?

Democracy by classic definition is 'the rule of the people by the people for the people'. In more modern terms democracy is used to refer to a system of governance opposite to authoritarian and totalitarian systems. The sovereignty of the people may be an untamed beast, or can be one restricted by constitutional restrictions, depending on the form that democracy takes. In all cases however, a model democracy ensures the protection of human rights, the guarantee of religious freedom and freedom of speech. A model democracy also enshrines the doctrine of Separation of Powers, or separation of the three institution of government, namely the Executive, the Judiciary, and the Legislature. But the fact that a model democracy also enshrines the principle of Checks and Balances means that each one of these otherwise independent institutions do have the authority to act as watchdogs, if I may, over the actions of the other two institutions. So, in the end a model democracy enshrines the concept of Good Governance.This is achieved, not by the total independence of the government institutions, but by their interdependence.

One the other hand, Islam is the belief in the sovereignty of Allah Almighty. He revealed the Qur'an to the Prophet (PBUH) as a source of knowledge and guidance. The Prophet's traditions, known categorically as Sunnah, form the other primary source of Islamic law, second only to the clear guidances of the Qur'an. However, no statement could be more wrong than to say that the issues that are addressed by Islam are only those that are addressed to explicitly in the texts of the Qur'an and the Sunnah.

The reason for this is that the Qur'an and Sunnah provide an Islamic legal framework. Instead of providing a complete set of rigid laws, they provide the basic principles for Islamic law. They further provided us with guidelines and methods to use our minds as a secondary source of Islamic law, that must lean on the general principles and authorities from the Qur'an and Sunnah.

This is true for all aspects of Islamic law, including politics. Whatever methods provided in the Qur'an and Sunnah form an inclusive definition of Islamic politics as opposed to an exclusive one.

The truth however remains that there are certain practices that are associated with democracy that are not completely in line with Islamic principles and ethical guidelines.

For example, the concept of human rights, as it is portrayed today, denotes the idea of complete equality, even if it does not establish equity. It also denotes the acceptance of certain deviances from rules of morality and canons of human nature. Religious freedom and freedom of speech, as 'democracy' portrays it, seem to indicate a total acceptance of all kinds of blasphemies and scandalous utterings. It also seems for some people that to nominate yourself for a post and to campaign for it means making false claims about traits that you never even dreamt of having. For others it is to make fabricate stories about the other parties that are contesting for the same spot. Even more dangerously, the power of money in politics means that the special interests of the rich are more protected than the rights and interests of normal citizens.

So, what are we to do as Muslims? Are we to go against a clear principle of Islamic law that Islamic politics is not restricted to the explicit provisions of the Qur'an and Sunnah there by rejecting Democracy as non-Islamic and a sin? Or are we instead to accept 'Democracy' as it is given to us on a gold plated platter, despite the clear deviations from Islamic teachings?

I believe neither of the above mentioned choices is an option for Muslims. To choose the first way would mean to let our governance go in the end to the hands of by non-Islamic people who have no care what so ever for the teachings of our religion. The second choice, would mean there's no difference between 'Islamic' people who 'love Islam' and those people whom we don't want to be governing us.

What choice are we left with then? As it has been repeatedly mentioned throughout this article, we Muslims have been given clear guidelines that we must follow. What is known as democracy is not a rigid set of rules, but rather a system that targets for the implementation of justice. Democracy can be shaped in accordance to the Islamic teachings. The reason for this is that while democracy is intended to provide the people with the goodness of this world, Islam is the way for the betterment of both this world and the next.

We as Muslims don't have to accept the Western definitions of democratic values. To be given human rights does not be to be given the right to fall below the standards of humanity. To be given religious freedom is not to be given the freedom to wage war against what Islam holds divine. To be given the right of free speech does not have to mean the freedom to utter whatever defamatory thoughts that come to your mind. To run for a political post with all your might is not the same as to run for that post with the might that you don't really have. And for politicians to follow every whim of special interest lobbyists, despite the danger it poses for the country as a whole, is not even a democratic value.

So, no. We don't want an imported version of democracy. We don't want a country where the people are supreme. We want a country where Islam is supreme. We want a country where justice is implemented. We want a political system that respects our values, and allows us to grow as a nation.