Ibrahim Mohamed Solih's Failed Presidency in the Maldives.

The Maldives is heading to a runoff election on September 30, 2023, after none of the candidates secured more than 50 percent of the votes in the first round held on September 9. The incumbent president Ibrahim Mohamed Solih, who is seeking re-election, will face Mohamed Muizzu, the vice president of the Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM), which is backed by former president Abdulla Yameen. The question that many Maldivians are asking is whether Solih deserves a second term, or whether he has failed to deliver on his promises and address the challenges facing the nation.

Solih came to power in 2018, after defeating Yameen in a surprise victory that ended five years of authoritarian rule (allegedly). Solih promised to restore democracy, fight corruption, improve the economy, and balance the foreign relations of the Maldives. However, after nearly five years in office, Solih’s administration has been plagued by multiple crises and controversies that have undermined his credibility and performance.

One of the most prominent issues facing Solih’s administration is its heavy dependence on India for financial and security assistance. Since coming to power, Solih has adopted an ‘India First’ policy, which has resulted in several agreements and initiatives with India, such as a $1.4 billion financial assistance package, a currency swap agreement, a defense cooperation agreement, and various infrastructure projects. While these agreements have provided some benefits to the Maldives, such as improving connectivity, health care, and human resource development, they have also raised concerns about the Maldives’ sovereignty and autonomy. The presence of Indian military personnel and assets in the Maldives, such as helicopters, radars, and patrol vessels, has sparked debates among Maldivian politicians and civil society regarding potential threats to the nation’s independence and territorial integrity. Moreover, the Maldives’ alignment with India has also strained its relations with other regional powers, such as China and Pakistan, which have accused India of interfering in the Maldives’ internal affairs.

Another major challenge faced by Solih’s administration is the allegations of corruption and nepotism within the government. Critics argue that Solih has favored family members and close associates in government appointments and contract awards, violating the principles of merit and transparency. For instance, Solih’s brother-in-law Mohamed Shainee was appointed as the Minister of Fisheries, Marine Resources and Agriculture, while his nephew Ahmed Nasir was appointed as the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs. Furthermore, several contracts for infrastructure projects funded by India were awarded to companies owned or linked to Solih’s family members or political allies, such as Island Expert Pvt Ltd and Gulf Cobla Pvt Ltd. These allegations have eroded public trust in the government and hindered effective governance.

A third challenge faced by Solih’s administration is the rampant mismanagement across various government bodies. Inefficiencies and a lack of transparency have hindered the effective functioning of key institutions, impacting service delivery and public welfare. For example, the Auditor General’s Office has reported several cases of irregularities, wastage, and fraud in various ministries and agencies, such as the Ministry of Tourism, the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Education, the Maldives Police Service, and the Maldives Immigration. Moreover, the administration has failed to implement adequate measures to ensure accountability and oversight over these institutions, such as strengthening anti-corruption laws, establishing independent commissions, and conducting regular audits.

A fourth challenge faced by Solih’s administration is the severe government debt crisis. The administration has incurred high levels of public debt due to its high spending without commensurate economic benefits. The nation’s debt-to-GDP ratio has reached unsustainable levels, reaching 140 percent in 2020. This poses significant risks to the country’s financial stability, as it increases its vulnerability to external shocks, such as fluctuations in global commodity prices, exchange rates, interest rates, and tourism demand. The administration’s failure to manage this crisis has resulted in increased economic vulnerability.

A fifth challenge faced by Solih’s administration is the lack of substantial infrastructure development initiatives. Despite significant spending, the administration has failed to deliver substantial infrastructure development initiatives that would improve the country’s economic prospects and living standards. The administration has focused on small-scale projects that have limited impact or feasibility, such as building artificial islands, constructing bridges, or renovating airports. These projects have also been plagued by delays, cost overruns, or poor quality. The administration has neglected more urgent and strategic infrastructure needs, such as improving water supply, sanitation5, waste management, renewable energy, transportation, health care facilities, education facilities, and disaster resilience.

The final challenge faced by Solih’s administration is the COVID-19 pandemic, which has hit the Maldives hard. The Maldives has reported over 186,000 coronavirus cases and 316 deaths as of September 23, 20233. While the figures have remained relatively low for the most part, COVID-19 cases jumped to a record high in January 2023 due to the emergence of the Omicron variant, with a record 18,665 confirmed cases in one week. The administration has struggled to contain the spread of the virus, despite imposing travel restrictions, lockdowns, and curfews. The administration has also faced criticism for its slow and uneven vaccination campaign, which has only covered about 60 percent of the population as of September 2023. The pandemic has also severely affected the tourism sector, which is the main source of income and employment for the Maldives. The tourism arrivals have dropped by more than 50 percent in 2020 and 2021 compared to pre-pandemic levels, resulting in huge losses for the industry and the economy.

In conclusion, Solih’s administration has failed to address the multiple challenges facing the nation, and has jeopardized its economic stability and sovereignty. Solih has not delivered on his promises of restoring democracy, fighting corruption, improving the economy, and balancing the foreign relations of the Maldives. Instead, he has relied on India for financial and security assistance, favored his family members and allies in government affairs, mismanaged various government bodies, incurred high levels of public debt, failed to deliver substantial infrastructure development initiatives, and struggled to cope with the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, Solih does not deserve a second term as president, and Maldivians should vote for a change in leadership that can secure the nation’s future.

References:

- Ahmed, Aishath. 2023. "Maldives' COVID-19 cases hit record high amid Omicron surge." Maldives Times, January 10. Accessed September 23, 2023. 

- Ali, Mohamed. 2021. "Maldives' debt-to-GDP ratio reaches 140 percent." The Edition, December 31. Accessed September 23, 2023. 

- Anand, Geeta. 2020. "India and China vie for influence in the Maldives." The New York Times, August 31. Accessed September 23, 2023. 

- Auditor General's Office. 2021. "Annual Report 2020." Auditor General's Office, Maldives. Accessed September 23, 2023. 

- Ministry of Tourism. 2021. "Tourism Statistics: Annual Report 2020." Ministry of Tourism, Maldives. Accessed September 23, 2023. 

- Naseer, Mohamed. 2019. "India-Maldives defence cooperation agreement signed." Raajje.mv, December 14. Accessed September 23, 2023. 

- Rasheed, Zaheena. 2018. "Maldives signs $1.4bn currency swap deal with India." Al Jazeera, December 17. Accessed September 23, 2023. 

- Zahir, Ahmed. 2019. "Solih's family and allies benefit from India-funded projects." Mihaaru, October 20. Accessed September 23, 2023.

The Ethical Imperative of Media Neutrality: Guarding Democracy Amidst Partisanship

In an era of rapidly evolving media landscapes and the incessant flow of information, the ethical and moral obligations of media personnel have taken center stage. The cornerstone of responsible journalism is the commitment to producing fair and accurate reports and opinions. However, a disturbing trend has emerged where political bias, fueled by lucrative exclusivity deals with a single party, threatens the very essence of impartial journalism. Equally disconcerting is the perceived inaction of media regulatory authorities in addressing this growing concern.

Media personnel wield immense power and influence, as their words shape public opinion and, consequently, the course of our democracies. The ethical obligation they bear is to provide balanced and unbiased coverage, enabling citizens to make informed decisions. Sadly, some media professionals have succumbed to the allure of substantial paychecks offered by political parties in exchange for exclusive promotion of their content. This unholy alliance between media outlets and political entities undermines the principles of neutrality and objectivity, eroding the trust citizens place in the media.

One must question the moral compass of media personnel who prioritize financial gains over their duty to serve as the fourth estate, safeguarding democracy. By aligning themselves exclusively with a single party, they effectively become propaganda machines, drowning out opposing voices and hindering healthy political discourse. This not only distorts the information ecosystem but also undermines the public's ability to critically evaluate different perspectives.

Media regulatory authorities play a pivotal role in upholding journalistic standards and ethics. However, their apparent inaction in the face of these egregious ethical violations raises concerns about their effectiveness. To maintain the public's trust, regulatory bodies must be proactive in investigating and addressing instances of partisan bias in the media. This includes enforcing existing regulations, revising outdated codes of conduct, and promoting transparency in media ownership.

Furthermore, media outlets themselves must cultivate a culture of responsibility and accountability. They should adopt stringent ethical guidelines that prohibit exclusive partnerships with political entities and prioritize objective reporting. Editors and journalists should remain vigilant in upholding these standards, as their credibility hinges on their commitment to impartiality.

The ethical and moral obligation of media personnel to provide fair and accurate reporting cannot be overstated. The corrosive influence of political bias fueled by exclusive deals with single political parties threatens the very fabric of our democracies. Media regulatory authorities must rise to the occasion and take appropriate measures to curb this concerning trend. Ultimately, the media's role as a guardian of democracy relies on its unwavering commitment to truth, balance, and impartiality, free from the shackles of partisan interests. Only then can we hope to preserve the integrity of our information ecosystem and the health of our democracies.

Comparing Governance Models: Parliamentary vs. Presidential Systems

In the realm of democracy, countries have the task of selecting a governance model that best suits their unique needs and challenges. This choice often boils down to two prevalent systems: the parliamentary system and the presidential system. Each system brings its own set of advantages and disadvantages, making the decision a critical one for any nation. In this article, I will delve into the characteristics of these systems, comparing their merits and shortcomings. Furthermore, I will analyze which model may be most suitable for a small developing country like the Maldives. Additionally, I will explore how politicians could potentially exploit the parliamentary system, hindering national development and causing citizens to suffer.

Parliamentary System:

In a parliamentary system, the executive branch derives its legitimacy from and is accountable to the legislature (parliament). The head of government (Prime Minister) is typically the leader of the majority party in the parliament.

Advantages:

1. Efficient decision-making due to the close relationship between the executive and legislative branches.

2. Flexibility to change leadership quickly through votes of no confidence.

3. Promotes stable governance when the majority party maintains support.

Disadvantages:

1. Lack of separation of powers can lead to potential abuses of power.

2. The dominance of the majority party can stifle dissenting voices.

3. Coalition governments can be unstable and lead to frequent elections.

Presidential System:

In a presidential system, the executive branch is separate from the legislative branch. The president is elected independently of the legislature and serves a fixed term.

Advantages:

1. Clear separation of powers prevents one branch from dominating the other.

2. Stable leadership for a fixed term can provide predictability.

3. Accountability is often more direct through presidential elections.

Disadvantages:

1. Gridlock can occur if the president and legislature belong to different parties.

2. Difficulty in removing an ineffective president before the end of the term.

3. Tendency for a winner-takes-all approach in elections can lead to polarization.

Suitability for the Maldives:

For a small developing country like the Maldives, a parliamentary system may be more suitable due to its potential for efficient decision-making and adaptability. However, it's crucial to address the risk of politicians using the system to gain undue power.

Challenges with Parliamentary Systems:

1. Power Concentration: The majority party or coalition can accumulate significant power, potentially leading to abuses and a lack of checks and balances.

2. Clientelism: Politicians may engage in patronage and favoritism to secure support, hindering national development by diverting resources away from needed projects.

3. Short-Term Focus: Frequent elections can encourage politicians to prioritize short-term gains over long-term development.

To mitigate these challenges, Maldives should implement strong democratic institutions, promote transparency, and ensure an independent judiciary to uphold the rule of law. Additionally, civil society and media should play a vital role in holding politicians accountable for their actions.

The relationship between democracy and development of countries

The relationship between democracy and the development of countries is a complex and controversial topic, with scholars and policymakers holding varying opinions. Some argue that democracy is a necessary condition for the development of countries, as it creates an enabling environment for economic growth, political stability, and human rights. On the other hand, others argue that democracy can hinder development, particularly in countries with weak institutions, low levels of human capital, and high levels of corruption.

Historical evidence suggests that there is a positive relationship between democracy and the development of countries. Countries that have transitioned to democratic governance have seen improvements in economic growth, human development, and social justice. For example, after the transition to democracy in the 1980s, many Latin American countries experienced significant economic growth and reductions in poverty. Similarly, India, one of the largest democracies in the world, has achieved impressive economic growth since the 1990s, when it embraced market-oriented reforms and expanded its democratic institutions.

However, it is important to note that the relationship between democracy and the development of countries is not linear or automatic. The success of democratic governance in promoting development depends on a number of factors, including the quality of institutions, the level of human capital, and the strength of civil society. Countries with weak institutions, low levels of human capital, and high levels of corruption are more likely to experience challenges in implementing democratic governance effectively.

Another factor that affects the relationship between democracy and the development of countries is the type of democracy. There are different models of democratic governance, ranging from parliamentary to presidential systems. Each model has its own strengths and weaknesses, and the type of democracy that is best suited for a particular country depends on a number of factors, including the level of economic development, the level of social and political stability, and the cultural traditions of the country.

In conclusion, the relationship between democracy and the development of countries is complex and dependent on a number of factors. While historical evidence suggests that there is a positive relationship between the two, the success of democratic governance in promoting development depends on the quality of institutions, the level of human capital, and the strength of civil society, among other factors. Additionally, the type of democracy that is best suited for a particular country depends on a number of factors, including the level of economic development, the level of social and political stability, and the cultural traditions of the country.