|
|
 |
 |
 |
| Wednesday, 10 March 2004 |
 |
|
 |
Features | |
| News Business Features Editorial Security Politics World Letters Sports Obituaries
|
Point of View: 'Time and space now needed' by A. M. Ali, Maldives The ushering in of the Gayoom government for a record sixth term in office on November 2003 had kept many media-commentators busy and the limelight has been focussed sharply from all over the globe on this tiny nation of about 1,200 islands with roughly a little over a quarter of a million people. For precisely no other reason but curiosity as to why the vote of confidence and such a high level of confidence at that (over 90 per cent of the total vote count), had attracted the attention of many a media organisation including the BBC and those in the Sri Lankan press in their eagerness to file an interesting story from a corner of the globe that may smack, in their imagination, of potentially dirty politics. As was expected of media personnel they peered and probed long and hard, interviewing an ever-popular President and selected individuals from amongst his people. The views expressed in the various media reports that subsequently followed were of a mixed nature. Considering that a significant amount of policy-making and the efforts to manifest in this sixth term the culmination of genuine, substantial long-term planning exercises conducted by the government over the years contributed to the political campaigning of this no-party democracy, it seemed somewhat unjustified and irresponsible, the media's feigned disinterest to highlight such. undue press coverage in the international media given to the lone voices of critical comment instead dominated in typically sensationalised fashion. Every media-report of course has to have a balanced view and credit given where credit was due. This was not done in the case of Maldives. it was all the more alarming as background research into the socio-economic history of the country and information on the very unique nature of the political institutions of the nation as created legally by its people have not informed such commentary. Maldives has been a no-party democracy from time immemorial. Parliamentary debate in the two instances when the door was open to introduce a party-system has not resulted in either occasion for the allowing of a political party. Elected representatives of each constituency had deliberated long and hard. It is a fair assumption that such deliberation must underlie some rationale and wisdom to maintain stability in a tiny populace scattered over just 200 inhabited isles. By the standards of democracy observed in the country such representatives have legal authority only to present the views of the constituency. Given this background it must be asked as to why all of a sudden the attention given to the innate idea of an illegal party for Maldives germinated in the minds of a few individuals that did not subscribe to the views of a majority of the people and underlied a cause that showed very little allegiance of protection of rights of any group of society in particular? Is it the media's place to sit in on judgement as to how the internal affairs of a country ought to be shaped? Moreover, the question must be asked as to what inequities such pundits are attempting to address in the face of all evidence pointing to the direction that the majority of the people live in harmony, peace and prosperity. Isn't democracy about majority rule in any event? The economic history of Maldives is peppered with personalities and families behind them that survived through thick and thin. World event, national crises and the process of historical materialism have sped by these entrepreneurs, as is the case all over the world. These personalities by sheer hard work, blood, sweat and tears have managed to transform not just the wealth of their own families but in the process made their mark on the nation's landscape of business and economic evolution. The father of contemporary Maldivian business enterprise is without doubt the late Koli Umar Maniku whose entrepreneurial spirit was so staunch that it was widely held throughout the country that it was his policy that even one cent of the local currency must be shown the respect it deserves. There are variations to this tale; many recount that his wealth originated from the saving of one single cent. (Although it must be borne in mind that in the early 1900s the value of one Maldivian cent may be something worth talking about. Maniku not being a member of the Maldivian aristocracy very quickly learned to survive by the rules, and played fairly and squarely to demonstrate to the Maldivian public at large that entrepreneurship will transcend all else. I hesitate to wonder what this patriarch would say at the amount of sludge throwing and muck-raking at the descendants of his family to whom his values of hard work, and civil obedience have been passed down to. The foundation built by Mr. Maniku has been very ably strengthened by his offsprings and the family as a unit stands tall today as monument to his values. Defamation can be a two-way street and the cowardly act of defamation can be engaged in by anybody. Easy. But as in every enterprise in life there are rules that must govern man's actions. They are called rules of law. The game of entrepreneurship, like any venture in life must also be governed by the accepted rules and norms of society, just as Marx has so illustriously explained to us. If the rights of a certain group of people in society (in Marx's case the proletariat) are felt to be deprived the institutions to attack ought to be those in society that purport to create and establish those rules. Not engage in bashing willy-nilly those stewards of enterprise that had built the country's economy into what it is today. Perhaps the reason why Marx's ideals never took the right path to achieving his desired objective in his lifetime was precisely because he himself was not of the entrepreneurial spirit; he was not a player on the entrepreneurial playing field. In any case, we must bear in mind that Marx never denounced capitalism as such. Simply for Marx, it was the documented norm of business practice of the day and more importantly it must be realised Marx was writing at a time when the laws governing human resource deployment, employment, wages and workers' rights were at their most rudimentary level. Isn't it time now that we, in the Maldives, looked critically at these issues and the concerned social institutions instead of engaging in personality bashing? The way forward may be strewn with rewards if we are clear in our minds as to whose rights we are vouching for. Just as Marx was. Email: [email protected] |
|
News | Business | Features
| Editorial | Security
Produced by Lake House |
