Maldives Insight Staff Writer

Maldivian citizens are set to participate in a referendum on 4 April to determine whether the presidential and parliamentary elections should be held concurrently or retain the current six-month gap between them. This decision comes amidst a history of political instability often linked to the distinct electoral cycles.

The existing six-month interval between a presidential election and the subsequent parliamentary polls has been characterised by political turmoil and governance challenges over the past 18 years, since the ratification of the current constitution.

Historical Precedents of Instability

The issue gained prominence following the 2008 presidential election, which saw President Mohamed Nasheed assume office, ending President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom’s 30-year tenure. However, just six months later, the parliamentary elections resulted in a majority for the Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP), closely associated with former President Gayoom, and its coalition partners. This led to significant obstruction of Nasheed’s government by the legislature, hindering its ability to function effectively. The government experienced unprecedented events, including the mass resignation of the entire cabinet, with political analysts widely attributing the loss of parliamentary majority as a pivotal factor in Nasheed’s eventual downfall.

More recently, President Dr. Mohamed Muizzu also encountered significant political challenges within the initial months of his presidency. Elected with a substantial mandate, his government faced an opposition-controlled Parliament, led by the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) which held a super-majority. Approximately two months into his term, the MDP decided to initiate impeachment proceedings against the President, gathering the necessary legal number of signatures. This period was marked by parliamentary obstruction, including the rejection of several of President Muizzu’s cabinet nominees and difficulties in passing the government’s budget as proposed. Members of the ruling People’s National Congress (PNC) continue to highlight the political “chaos” and alleged “blackmail” by the Parliament during this time.

In both instances, the parliamentary majority wielded significant power, with the capacity to severely destabilise or even legally attempt to remove the sitting president, underscoring the fragility of the current constitutional arrangement.

Debate Over Separate Elections

The recurring pattern over the last 18 years indicates that new governments, despite being elected with public hopes, have often spent their initial six months grappling with parliamentary election campaigns and political infighting.

Arguments Against Combined Elections

Opponents of combining the elections, including certain political analysts and opposition figures, present varied arguments. Abdulla Shahid, President of the MDP, has stated that consolidating the elections would diminish citizens’ opportunities to voice their opinions and hold the government accountable, describing such a move as a “devious plan.” Similarly, former MDP Chairperson Fayyaz Ismail, in a column for ‘Adhadhu’, suggested that combining elections would increase the likelihood of the ruling party securing a super-majority in Parliament, potentially rendering the legislature subservient to the Executive and compromising its vital oversight role.

Historical Counterpoints

However, the article notes that these arguments are somewhat undermined by historical events involving the very parties now raising these concerns. Despite separate elections, Maldivian voters have consistently granted a majority in Parliament to the party or coalition aligned with the sitting President. This was observed during President Abdulla Yameen’s term, President Ibrahim Mohamed Solih’s super-majority MDP Parliament, and the current government’s recent success in gaining a parliamentary majority within its first six months.

Regarding concerns about power concentration, the MDP itself championed the “Agenda-19” campaign in 2019, urging voters to elect a super-majority for the ruling party to avoid the challenges faced by President Nasheed. This campaign led to the MDP becoming the first single party to achieve a super-majority in the Parliament. Fayyaz Ismail himself served as an Economic Minister within this administration, where accountability mechanisms were perceived to be diminished due to the strong parliamentary control by the government.

Constitutional Design and Intent

Ahmed Thoriq (Tom), Member of Parliament for Mahibadhoo constituency, has suggested that the constitution was deliberately designed to make governance challenging for the then-incumbent President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, granting Parliament unusual powers. He referred to the records of the Special Majlis, the constituent assembly, to support this view.

This perspective is further supported by Dr. Shamsulfalahu, who, in a recent public lecture on the Seventh Amendment to the constitution, highlighted that while the Maldives operates under a presidential system, its constitution incorporates numerous characteristics of a parliamentary system. This hybrid design means that without a robust and responsible opposition, effective governance without a parliamentary majority becomes inherently difficult, a reality evident in both 2009 and 2024.

This inherent constitutional tension between the Executive and the Legislature might explain why both President Muizzu and former President Nasheed have been among the earliest proponents for combining the two elections.

The Referendum: A Vote for Stability

Ultimately, the referendum on 4 April is presented as a vote that extends beyond mere cost-saving for additional elections. It represents a fundamental question about political stability. Citizens are being asked whether they wish to maintain a six-month period that has historically led to government instability and challenges, or to vote for a system designed to foster greater political harmony and continuity in governance.