The other Maldives

“Aneh dhivehirajje” arguably is the most popular and successful marketing slogan ever used in the Maldives; all commercial, social and political campaigns included.

If “aneh dhivehrajje” means other Maldives; as in a different physical location, pardon me for saying this, it has to be Trivandrum, India...

Tomorrow I’m flying there with my parents for a medical treatment. I will be there for about 2 weeks. I have been there couple of times before, and I suspect there are not many Maldivians who haven’t been there for at least once.

The medical tourism for Maldivians there is so developed and wide spread that you can see advertisements written in Dhivehi script all over the city. I’ve been told that Maldivians contribute significantly to the GDP of the City.

Well, to make things clear I’m only going there because I have to… for ordinary Maldivians certain medical treatments are only available in the “other Maldives”.

Getting dirty while cleaning ...

The current political environment is as tense as it has ever been; and it appears that the tension may explode into an intensely devastating blaze at any moment now.

This leads me to think whether the current situation could have been avoided at all. This leads me to ponder whether the current actions by the government are a result of an unfavorable outcome in a certain event in the recent past. This leads me to question whether the intentions of the government are genuine or is politically motivated. This leads me to consider whether someone else could have done it differently.

The fact of the day that I cannot refuse nevertheless is that; today we have a constitution that facilitates democracy to its smallest fraction of the word. The institutions are in place that will guarantee that our country, politics, the whole system is kept “clean”.

The trouble is this: when the new constitution and the institutions came into being, the existing system was already a “junkyard”. Therefore, the first and the foremost task for anyone responsible for enforcing the new elements would be to first clean the mess up.

The question is this: Can anyone clean a junkyard without getting dirty?

My reasoning and rationale for the current actions of the government suggests that, it is absolutely necessary to carry on tasks such as that of what the government is currently pursuing. I totally agree that such actions cannot be conventionally classified as democratic or genuine if viewed out of context. I know that it is very easy to brand such actions as unreasonable, arbitrary or politically motivated. But can you do it differently? I think not!

To clean a junkyard thoroughly you have to get yourself dirty. Once it is clean … then only can we truly practice democracy to the smallest fraction of the word.

Clearing misconceptions

Democracy and party system brought many changes to our society. Some of the changes we expected some we didn’t. Some of the changes that are favorable and some that is not. Some of the changes which were easier for us to get accustomed to, some not so much. The pros and cons so to say, of the political changes we see today are many. Whether the pros outweigh cons or wise verse; is impossible to decide objectively.

Among many things the recent parliamentary election results revealed, one of the main revelations is that the people have accepted the party system and that there are two major political parties in the Country.

At this stage here are some misconceptions now we can clear with the short experience we have in democracy and party politics.

Misconception 1: If the ruling party does not win a majority in the parliament, the government will fall.

In a presidential system of government it is not necessary to have a majority in the parliament for the ruling party to run the government. The impeachment of the president is not an act or a result of the ruling party not having a majority in the parliament. The president under the constitution can be impeached only under three conditions, when two-third of the parliament agrees on the issue. Just a simple fact that the two-third of the parliament does not approve of the president or is not from the same party alone is not a valid reason to impeach the president under the constitution.

Misconception 2: Having too many political parties is not healthy for a small society like Maldives.

Now we know that no matter how many political parties are registered at the Elections Commission, only two or three can gain and win the required support of the public, which is vital for effective functioning of any political party. Therefore, no matter how many parties are registered, if an overwhelming support is not received, that party is equivalent of not having registered at all.

Misconception 3: Political appointees and Civil Servants are two sides of the same coin.

With time and experience we are now able to win the trust and support of the each other, and are proving that they are in fact part of the same drawing board and will have to work together as a team.

These are just a few misconceptions that are spread across people and communities. There are many more that we can clear now and as well as the time goes with experience. Some misconceptions are spread purposely to misinform public to gain a political advantage during a specific point of time, some misconceptions are stereotypic beliefs that are generalized; and some misconceptions are due to our lack of experience and education.

The market is officially black.

The Finance Minister last month in his budget presentations to the parliament nonchalantly declared that a black market in US Dollars was in operation in the Maldives. Listening to that what worried me most was not the fact that a black market was actually in operation, that I knew even before his declaration, but how cool and unconcerned he sounded in his declaration. He sounded as if he was talking about a black market for tickets in SAFF Championship.

What are the implications of that news? What can it do to investor confidence? What are the effects to the economy of a low investor confidence?

In Maldives our currency Rufiyaa is pegged to US Dollars. We have maintained a fixed currency regime for a very long time. Through the economic ups and downs over the years, the Central Bank overall has done a good job maintaining the peg in the past. But that should not make us overconfident in an ever evolving and a dynamic global economy where a single economic trigger anywhere in the world can have drastic and lasting effects all over the world.

The emergence or creation of a black market in a fixed exchange rate economy in itself signals among many things; that the Central Bank is having difficulties with its foreign currency reserves.

Typically, a government wanting to maintain a fixed exchange rate does so by either buying or selling its own currency on the open market. This is one reason governments maintain reserves of foreign currencies. If the exchange rate drifts too far below the desired rate, the government buys its own currency off the market using reserves. This places greater demand on the market and pushes up the price of the currency. If the exchange rate drifts too far above the desired rate, the opposite measures are taken.

In the past we have seen that governments attempts to maintain a high local currency to the peg has resulted in severe financial crisis around the world. This was seen in Mexican (1995), Asian and Russian (1997) financial crises; an attempt to maintain the peg against the natural economic conditions resulted in the currencies eventually becoming overvalued. That meant that the government could not meet the demands to convert the local currency into the foreign currency at the pegged rate. With speculation and panic, investors scrambled to get out their money and convert it into foreign currency before the local currency was devalued against the peg; foreign reserves eventually became depleted. In Mexico’s case the government was forced to devalue peso by 30%. In Thailand, the government eventually had to allow the currency to float, and by the end of 1997, the baht had lost its value by 50% as the markets’ demand and supply readjusted the value of local currency.

Subsequent to the declaration by the Finance Minister in April I expected a response or a reaction from the Central Bank MMA. I expected them to formulate measures to build or maintain investor confidence in our country. I expected them to denounce the black market operations and take actions against such operations. I expected them to inform public about the difficulties the country is having in foreign currency issues and about the attempts that are being made to solve the problem. So far nothing has been said by MMA.

In the April 2009 issue of Monthly Economic Review published by MMA, not a single word was said about the current foreign currency difficulties, but merely just stated as follows:

“The Maldivian Rufiyaa, which is pegged to the United States dollar, stood unchanged since the 9 percent devaluation in July 2001, with the buying and selling rates remaining at 12.75 and 12.85, respectively”.

Nothing out of the ordinary this country is experiencing. Everything seems normal and calm … as far as the government and the central bank is concerned.

Are we "worked" enough?

"Are we paid enough?", is what we are accustomed to asking and/or hearing. Instead, have you ever thought of asking the opposite, like " are we paid too much?" or "are we "worked" enough?".

With the new salary structure of Civil Service, the basic salary and take-home pay has been revised for everyone in the service. After a great deal of foul cry, debates, accusations and controversy from many groups and professions in the Civil Service, now the tension seems to have subsided for a little. All the while Civil Service Commission had maintained their position saying, that the new structure is not an increase in salaries per say, but a revision of the structure of pay. Whether it means two different things is a different story. What we know for sure is that everyone in the civil service has seen an increase in their take-home pay. The rate of increase may have been different for different people, but the increase was there nonetheless.

I think now its time for us to ask whether the increase or the total pay we receive is justifiable for the tasks the we are asked to perform. How do we know that? The basic economic concept of demand and supply can be applied to obtain an answer.

Lets say, a personal secretary to a Manager who is merely asked to perform some administrative functions, such as managing appointments, typing letters, answering telephone calls is paid Rf 20,000.00, maybe she is paid that much because she has been in the service for a long period of time hence, huge incremental increase is received. would you consider it too less, OK, or too much? Do you think such an experienced staff is required for that post?

The answer is in asking the following question. Can we find someone who will be willing to perform the said functions for a lesser salary? if the answer is Yes then, she is definitely paid too much, if the answer is No, maybe she is paid OK, or maybe even too little. (assuming the required skills are identified and agreed).

My point is this, if the staff are paid too little, the management is made aware of the fact by the staff everyday all the time. But what if they are paid too much? how will management know about that, the staff definitely will not tell.

I stand alone!

In the run up to the general elections to the parliament, among many arguments, proclamations and promises, one statement we hear a lot from many candidates in their speeches and slogans is “I am independent, no one can influence me,” or something to that effect.

Why do they say it so loud? ...

They surely must believe that the said proclamation will award them more support which will result in more votes. They might also be saying that in defense of the possibility of public thinking that they were not able to obtain a ticket from a political party, which would imply that they are not very popular even inside the party.

When I look at the candidates who are claiming to be independent, many of them I know has been actively involved in the party activities up to the date of the campaign. Some insider information suggests that some of them actually did not win the ticket of the party, hence decided to go alone. Some as I’ve heard are running for the party under the “independent card” in disguise to beat a party candidate who won a ticket party management does not approve of. Some of them I think are running alone, because they are too scared to align with one single party in the fear that if and when a party loses its power, he loses as well!

When I think about the significance or the meaning of the claim “I’m independent”, I feel that it is a not that significant at all or rather it’s a disadvantage both for the candidate and for the constituents who elects them.

In a place like parliament where majority decides, what can an individual standing alone accomplish?

Imagine this … a soccer player on the field believes he is not with the rest of the team and even worse other players does not trust or recognize him!

On the role of parliament to make the executive accountable.

With the general elections for the parliament just one week away, the campaigning for the parliamentary seats are at its peak. With the record number of candidates contesting for the 77 seats, run up to this election so far has been very interesting if not awe-inspiring. "for the first time" are so many things in this election. Just to mention a few, this is the first time parliament is elected after official functioning of a party system began. first time parliament is elected after the new constitution was enacted, first time so many seats are introduced, for the first time, candidates are running under the tickets of political parties and the list can go on.

One of the interesting arguments or rather concern expressed by the opposition candidates in general is that the the key role of the parliament in a presidential system is to make the government accountable and hence if parliament is controlled by the same as the executive, it cannot make the government accountable. "making the government accountable" no doubt is an important role of the parliament, but what does it actually means?

Does it mean that the parliament will confront the government in every step of the way? or does it mean that the parliament will be there to show all negative implications of whatever the government does? or does it mean the parliament will act to discredit the government wherever and whenever possible to gain postive points for the parliament or for the political party or alliance the members fall into?

Or on the other hand, does it mean that the parliament will provide support and assistance to the government in its work to fulfill its promise to the public?

In a parliamentary system the executive will be led by the party who holds a majority of the parliament. the rationale for this is very simple. the legislature who makes all laws and regulations will assist or rather will be part of the executive who works to implement and run projects for the overall betterment of the general pubic.

Although in a presidential system its not necessary to have a majority in the parliament for a party to run the executive, the reasoning or the advantage of having a majority in parliament will be same as that of a parliamentary system. The end result is betterment of people.

The opposition taking the argument as their campaign slogan intends to misinform public and to create a fear in order for them to win votes ... when the truth is that just having a majority in the parliament by ruling party by itself is not necessarily harmful or bad for a nation, when in fact it will only be an additional strength for the executive for the successful implementation of its promises to the public.

we have to also realize people are the fourth and the final power in a democratic system, whenever undesirable circumstances aggravates ... c'mon people r not dead!