Lawmakers being 'bound'; but why now?

Maldivian administrations have always vied for control of the Parliament; actively seeking to gain and maintain control of the legislative assembly, especially if they manage to secure a sizable majority.

In 2014, the Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) became the first ruling party to secure a majority in the Parliament following the enactment of the new Constitution. It was in 2018, towards the end of the PPM administration, that the country saw the birth of its first anti-defection laws. The Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) administration, which replaced the PPM administration, secured a greater victory in the 2019 general elections. It secured a supermajority in the Parliament. It was after the end of the MDP administration, but while the party still had control of the Parliament, that the current anti-defection laws – which legal experts criticize for its legal loopholes – were passed.

The Parliament can hold the government directly accountable for its decisions and scrutinize its functioning. For this reason, all administrations desire for influence over the Parliament. And they have exerted influence; with black duffle bags, and if that does not work – with fists.

The incumbent People’s National Congress (PNC) administration celebrated its one-year anniversary this week. President Dr. Mohamed Muizzu does not find the existing Anti-Defection Act sufficient, and wants to write anti-defection clauses into the Constitution itself. The administration wants the constitutional amendments rushed.

Secretive messages and words spoken in confidence indicate PNC lawmakers aren’t happy about this either. But no one has publicly expressed their opposition.

This is an attempt to bind lawmakers

Article 73 (c) of the Constitution already declares circumstances where lawmakers will lose their seats.

• If a lawmaker with a proven debt fails to repay it in accordance with the court ruling
• If a lawmaker is serving a term of over 12 months for a criminal conviction
• If it has not been three years since a lawmaker sentenced to over 12 months for a criminal conviction has either finished serving the sentence or had the sentence commuted
• If a lawmaker is a judge in a court of law

The government wants to add additional provisions to this Article. The bill, sponsored by Hulhudhoo MP Mohamed Shahid, declares three more circumstances where lawmakers will lose their seat. That is:

• If a lawmaker resigns from or is dismissed or expelled from the party they were elected on behalf of
• If a lawmaker switches parties or is dismissed or expelled from a party
• If an independent lawmaker joins a party

Floor crossing is a big game. It was not that long ago that over a dozen lawmakers from the MDP switched to PNC shortly after the party came to power. Some people are happy that this “trade” is being put to a stop.

“I support adding an anti-defection clause to the Constitution. But there should be certain principles that a state must abide by when amending the Constitution,” said Fathimath Dhiyana Saeed, a former attorney general.

“The Constitution is the fundamental principles of this country that is deeply intertwined with the interests of the people. According to the Constitution, all powers of the state start with the people and rests with the people. Therefore, amendments to the Constitution must be made after a public consultancy process.”

This is true. Making amendments at will without any room for discourse renders the entire Constitution useless.

This is not Dhiyana’s opinion. But, if a lawmaker loses their seat if they are expelled from their party, they are effectively bound. They will be bound to blindly follow the party’s every instruction, or forced to give up their hard-won seat.

Imagine this. A party issues a whip that goes against the will of a lawmaker’s constituents. The lawmaker risks expulsion if they violate the whip. What is this, if not coercion? Can lawmakers be bound any tighter? No.

This is why anti-defection provision were not included when the Constitution was drafted. This wasn’t an oversight but a deliberate decision. They discussed it, but decided against it.

“This is something the people who drafted the Constitution rejected,” said Ibrahim Ismail (Ibra), who chaired the committee that drafted the Constitution, in a previous interview regarding the subject.

One of the main reasons for the rejection of such a provision was to avoid infringing on the power of the people.

“Even if a party endorses a candidate, it cannot be decided that the voter votes for the candidate because of the party, right? It is the candidate they are vote for, right? So, this is reaching a point where it is encroaching on the Constitution,” said Ibra.

He also opinioned that such a provision would violate Article 75 of the Constitution, which declares the functions of a member of the Parliament.

• Article 75: Members of the People's Majlis should be guided in their actions by considerations of national interest and public welfare foremost, and should not exploit their official positions in any way for their own benefit or for the benefit of those with whom they have special relations. They shall represent not only their constituencies but the country as a whole.

Why now?

The bill comes as the government faces resistance over new foreign exchange regulations formulated by the central bank, which requires resorts to exchange USD 500 per tourist. Business magnates are angry. And there is some merit to their anger. But that is not the focus of this report.

“Let me say this in clear terms: I will not change the regulation. They will need to exchange USD 500,” said President Dr. Mohamed Muizzu, in response to the resistance.

The issue has gained momentum. And sometimes, the anger of business magnates makes it easier to sway lawmakers. Even if the government refuses to publicly admit it, it does harbor fears over this. Fears that some lawmakers may defy the government. This is the main reason for the decision to write anti-defection provisions into the Constitution.

“There is fear that some members may break away. I see this being driven by this fear and a lack of trust in lawmakers,” said one PNC lawmaker.

Some of the country’s wealthiest are angry with the government. Hence, the hard time trusting the lawmakers. This is the reason for the move to write the provisions into the Constitution itself. The reason to bind the only individuals who have power over the government.