The Maldivian Democratic Party Is Coming Apart

The victory of the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) in the 2018 presidential election and parliamentary elections the following year gave the Maldives a strong government and an opportunity for political stability. However, differences between President Ibrahim Solih and Speaker Mohamed Nasheed, a former president, are putting that in jeopardy.

Solih and Nasheed belong to the same party. They are childhood friends, comrades in the struggle for democracy in the Maldives, and related through marriage. However, their once-strong friendship and political partnership is fraying.

Their rift is tearing apart the MDP and could undermine the party’s performance in presidential and parliamentary elections scheduled for 2023 and 2024, respectively.  This could also impact the region’s geopolitics.

Their differences are growing. Nasheed is in favor of the Maldives switching to a parliamentary system. In April, he called on the president to dissolve the government, cancel the 2023 presidential election, and get parliament to convert the current presidential system into a fully parliamentary one. He is in favor of the current parliament running the country until general elections are held as scheduled in 2023.

Solih says that the MDP government must concentrate its energies on fulfilling its electoral pledges rather than diverting its attention to changing the political system at a time when country is battling the COVID-19 pandemic and its economic fallout. A major change in the political system should be made only after consulting the people in a referendum, he argues.

Another issue of contention between the two leaders is the government’s handling of religious extremism. Although the president has introduced institutional and legal reforms to tackle Islamist radicalism, these have not gone far enough, Solih’s critics say. Worse, under pressure from the Adhaalath Party, an Islamist ally of the MDP-led coalition government, and religious clerics, Solih backtracked on introducing legislation outlawing hate crimes.

Nasheed has strongly criticized Solih for reneging on his pledge to curb religious extremism in the Maldives. In May, Nasheed survived an assassination attempt by Islamist radicals. In the months since, his attacks on Solih’s “pandering to extremists” have grown. He and his supporters have called on Solih to proclaim a state of emergency to deal with extremism growing both within and outside the coalition government.

There are also fundamental differences in how the two approach issues. Nasheed has not shed his activist approach to political matters. He sees things in black and white; there are no greys in the way he perceives issues, and thus his approach to tackling problems is to confront them head-on.

This is not the way Solih approaches problems. He is more of a middle-of-the road person, who believes in resolving issues through compromise. He is perhaps the more realistic of the two as he is aware that a head-on collision with religious elements will prove counterproductive and bring down the government as it did in 2012.

Back in 2008, Nasheed contested presidential elections and won to become the Maldives’ first democratically elected president. His attempts to democratize and liberalize the country brought together Islamists in the ruling coalition, such as the Adhaalath Party, and the opposition, which included parties close to the previous authoritarian regime. The Maldives was roiled in violent protests and unrest. A police mutiny against Nasheed subsequently forced him to resign.

It is likely that Nasheed and Solih drew different lessons from the MDP’s experiences in the 2008-2012 period. Nasheed probably learned that appeasing the Islamists is counterproductive, while Solih may have realized that confronting them is self-destructive.

It is evident too that the two leaders are locked in a power struggle.

In the run-up to the 2018 presidential elections, the MDP chose Nasheed to be its candidate. However, the Maldivian courts had convicted Nasheed on terrorism charges and sentenced him to 13 years in jail, and although these charges were politically motivated, the Election Commission barred him from contesting the presidential election.

With most senior leaders of the MDP ruled out of the contest, Solih was fielded by the party in the election and won by a surprisingly large margin.

Subsequently, the Supreme Court cancelled the punishment and declared that there was no evidence to prove charges against Nasheed. He went on to contest the parliamentary election and became the Maldives’ speaker.

It is likely that Nasheed is unhappy being on the sidelines; hence his targeting of Solih. Nasheed has made it clear that he will be the MDP’s presidential candidate in 2023.

So serious is the rift between the two that Nasheed is even reaching out to opposition parties and politicians, including former President Abdulla Yameen and his Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM).

Unlike Nasheed, who is airing his views and criticism publicly, Solih has chosen to avoid bickering in the media.

The political wrangling at the top is seeping down to the ranks of the MDP. Even if the party does not split vertically, the rift will have implications for the MDP’s performance in the elections. It is the PPM and other opposition parties that will gain from infighting in the MDP.

The factionalism has geopolitical implications as well. The MDP is seen to be close to India and came to power in 2018 on an anti-China and anti-corruption wave. India’s relationship with Maldives, which was always strong, weakened considerably during Yameen’s presidency (2013-18). That changed with the MDP returning to power with a strong mandate in 2018.

A divided MDP will not only weaken the party’s electoral chances but also, should it result in the return to power of politicians and parties that are more authoritarian amd closer to China, the India-Maldives relationship could come under strain as a result.