Stifling dissent under the guise of national security

A democratic system is one where victory not only lies with the majority, but where minorities or those opposed to the status quo have the opportunity and the freedom to resist or make demands of those in positions of authority. Modern day democracy was brought to the Maldives by former President Mohamed Nasheed and his Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP), but these very same champions are now holding it in contempt. 

During the Yameen administration, the MDP and other like-minded opposition parties had vehemently condemned the growing cosiness between the Maldives and China. Modern day horror stories were constantly disseminated, of how wily Chinese diplomacy ensnared less fortunate nations in cyclical debt traps and 'land grabs.' Contrary to claims disseminated by various media, China has not seized any assets from any country, must less the port of Hambantota in Sri Lanka. Instead, 70 percent of the stake in the port was leased to China Merchants Port Holdings Company Limited for 99 years, the inflows of which was used to cover Sri Lanka's balance of payment woes. 

The same situation vis-à-vis China during the Yameen administration is being repeated with India by the current Solih administration. Infrastructure projects almost dwarfing the scope of the Chinese interaction have been signed into action, as well as alleged "military concessions." The now-opposition Progressive Party of Maldives, led by Yameen, has come out in force against the alleged Indian military presence in the Maldives. The MDP, however, has responded disproportionately to this display of opposition politics. 

Speaker of Parliament Nasheed has submitted a motion to the security services committee of parliament (241 committee) stating the opposition's 'India [military] Out' campaign posed a threat to national security. As subsequent meetings of the committee to inquire into the motion, various government ministers and officials have supported Nasheed's allegations. Minister of Defence Mariya Ahmed Didi said that such a campaign has major ramifications for the country's security, as well as putting the lives of Maldivians living in India at risk. The Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) and the Maldives Police Service (MPS) have also supported these claims, with the police also alleging that the campaign is funded and supported by drug cartels in response to India's support in apprehending and seizing drugs in the Indian Ocean. 

The MDP has also put together a bill to be presented to parliament that will seek to prohibit any actions that negatively impact the Maldives' foreign policy and ties with other countries. Lawmaker and former parliamentary group leader of the MDP, Ali Azim, on 21 January however said that some members within the party did not support the bill and that it has been 'parked.' 

While actions that truly threaten national security and the safety of Maldivian both at home and abroad are abhorrent, restrictions on freedom of expression is a rabbit hole that should not be ventured into. One need not look further than the plight in neighboring countries to understand the dire consequences going down such a path may bring. 

In Malaysia, the post-colonial Sedition Act of 1948 was put into force to stifle communism, but up until the year 2016, this one outdated law has been used to stifle opposition left and right. The then ruling party, Barisan Nasional had applied this law in over 170 arrests during its time in power, with another 91 cases tried in 2015 alone. The Malaysian people have repeatedly fought against the law and its misuse for decades, only managing to finally take the first steps to dismantle the act in 2018 with the support of the Malaysian monarchy. However, at the time of writing, the Act is still in full force.

In India, the situation is not entirely different. According to a recent report in the Indian Express, a very subjective legal tool is being applied. The paper, in an editorial states that "a new policy announced by the government dangles the threat of cancelling the accreditation of journalists if they'“act in a manner which is prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement of an offence.' This is an intrusion into the rights of a free press on many counts. First, accreditation is not a favour by the Government; it is bound by democratic norms to provide access to journalists to do their job. Second, what’s the definition of'“morality and decency,' and who will do the defining? These are vague and broad terms that, in the hands of a vindictive bureaucracy or a government, can easily be used to harass and silence journalists. This provision also appears to be intentionally blind to the place of journalism in a democracy — which exists to interrogate the state and its exercise of power."

Sri Lanka currently ranks number 127 amongst 180 nations as per the World Press Freedom Index by Reporters Without Borders. Reports state that with the rise of the Rajapaksa government, the threats on the lives of journalists have not abated, keeping up with the same numbers as that during the civil war in the years 1983 to 2009. Multiple incidents of journalists being attacked by both civilians and criminal entities have been left without proper investigation, establishing the dangers of news reporting in the island.

The Maldives ranks 72 on the aforementioned list, and that’s roughly better than half, thus far. However, if the Solih Administration intends to follow the footsteps of their current diplomatic best-friend, stifling opposition via legal means might not be far off. It is with great relief that the news of the proposed bill being stopped in its tracks have come to light over the last week, despite even the Minister of Economic Development weighing in on an emotional level against the protests.

Press freedom, as well as freedom of expression has been stifled in the Maldives since the Nasir administration and was a component of the Maumoon administration that Nasheed so direly fought against. Yet while sitting in the position of Speaker of Parliament, Nasheed, and the MDP,  has voiced concern against the protests, which only hints that there are much deeper and much more ominous reasonings as to why the administration is so deathly afraid of anti-Indian military establishment sentiment within the opposition.