Decentralisation stalemate

Autonomy and authority freshly assigned to the new local councils and committees provide some glimmer of hope towards true decentralisation.

MFR Image

MFR Image

The Maldives is naturally predisposed towards being decentralised. Geographically dispersed, with spoken language in different dialects and with communities themselves being somewhat independent. The lure, and illusion, of development stems from the majority of written literature documenting a singular view with regard to governance - that centralisation is the only way forward. Throughout documented history, humans have lived as decentralised societies. In fact, the many isles of Maldives enjoyed a life of decentralisation before Maldivians were swept up in progress.

The history of centralisation comes with the fabled tale of the first Maldivian king. Uniting the people into obedience and asserting authority over their lives and very being, the singular rule over the nation was to serve every citizen of the isles. Over time the social contract of centralisation only grew stronger. To this day, the Maldives finds itself in its inescapable clutches.

Centralisation organises and allocate roles, resources and even development. However the nature of centralisation bestowing power into the hands of the few has often disrupted the wants of the common and isolate minorities.

Maldivians have been living under a singular authority ever since one can remember. A naturally decentralised country is now attempting to break free from the limitations of centralisation. The super majority of the population have placed their trust on this government to turn this dream into reality.

In order to gain back authority, autonomy and liability from a central source, Malé, while also catching up in terms of development with the capital city, the "Jazeera Dhiriulhun” and “Fahuruveri Aailaa” sections of the 2018 MDP manifesto promises to weave decentralisation back into the fabric of the Maldives. The promise of “laamarukazee” rode on the hopes of alleviating the pooling of developmental opportunities towards the Greater Malé Region and redirect them back to the islands. Autonomy and authority freshly assigned to the new local councils and committees seem to provide some glimmer of hope towards this goal.

The recent swearing-in, on 17 May 2020, of Councillors to Atoll, Island and City Councils and members to Women's Development Committees, commemorates a historic date; the very first step towards truly decentralised governance in the Maldives. To achieve this goal many hurdles have been surpassed, including a vital amendment to the Decentralisation Act.

The parliament began deliberations on the eighth amendment to the Decentralisation Act on October of 2019 and it passed in December of the same year. The amendment encourages financial stability and allows for more flexibility throughout atolls, in managing their own resources along with MVR5 million proposed to be given as sectoral grants to local councils.

Yet, despite the shining manifesto, and much needed changes being brought, the administration is still struggling to break free from the ingrained one-track centralisation mentality. The Greater Malé Region remains the sole and mammoth manifestation of “development.”

During the previous administration, 2015 saw a USD80 million loan to develop Hulhumalé phase II, 2017 saw a USD437 million loan signed to construct the infamous “hiyaa flats” housing project, and among other massive infrastructural investments in Greater Malé, 2018 saw the opening of the SinaMalé bridge with over USD200 million as it’s estimated cost.

Yet even as the current administration amplifies calls for decentralisation, they seem doomed to follow in the very same footsteps they criticised — the ideas, and words, remain just a selling point in their manifesto. They have signed agreements similar to that of past administrations to further Greater Malé development. The Greater Malé Bridge project, with a price tag of US400-500 million is underway, as well as a floating housing project with over USD1 billion in investments. The opportunities these kinds of investments offer will leave the south and the north of the Maldives in a clear development deficit.

Furthermore, the investments also appear to disregard the human element involved in their implementation. A bridge fosters economic growth but with it follows permanent ecological destruction. Tall housing projects bring affordable housing but with it follows an array of sociological issues. “Veshi Fahi Malé”, which would represent the capital on its journey of decentralisation, ironically, still actively encourages an inward pull of human migration.

Malé is considered the most “developed” city in the Maldives; one which the rest of the country, the story goes, aspires to emulate. The clustered concrete mess with no organisation is not a very good example to follow though. Every facet of life in Malé is riddled with complex, near unsolvable issues. Water, energy, sanitation and shelter are greatly compromised with overcapacity, and at times regulation, which fails to understand the human element. Over 47 percent of the population, 214,503 out of 451,622 citizens, live in the centripetal force that is Malé and more continue to flock to it.

Families from the atolls are still being forced to migrate to the capital for better opportunities, further increasing the strain on the rental market in Malé. The rent rates are never low enough to appropriately reflect the incomes of the families they house, nor does it ever offer them the possibility of being owners of the homes they grow up in.

The shift from centralisation to decentralisation is cyclical. To truly be free from the clutches of centralisation, the developmental crisis must be tackled head on. Politicians and policy makers must be willing and able to look past the almost reflexive trend to “develop from the centre out.” They must acknowledge this as a symptom, and address the systemic issues of the capital, including the “housing crisis” through the lens of a decades long decentralisation effort because clearly decentralisation cannot be achieve in one, two or even three political terms. The whole nation much acknowledge that decentralisation is a long haul process that will need a long haul solution.

More from MFR