THE DEMOCRATIC DICTATOR

Written by: Ali Assad

What is a dictatorship?

Is it just a word reserved for the opposition to call the incumbent president? A word that the rich and powerful or especially the West can use to topple governments that is not in line with their views or interests?

The line between a democratic leader and a dictator is so blurred politically these days that the best solution is to take a more scientific approach, like when identifying a species and thus categorizing a dictator using the characteristics of one.

A dictatorship is a form of government characterized by the absolute rule of one person or a very small group of people who hold all political power.

One of the most famous Maldivian “dictator” is President Maumoon Abdul Gayyoom, but to his supporters he was the leader of the golden 30 years of Maldives.

Why was former President Maumoon Abdul Gayyoom called a dictator?

Let’s compare the characteristics of “why” Maumoon was branded a “dictator” with the factual characteristics of another leader. The first person to be elected under the new modern Maldivian democratic constitution is former president Mohamed Nasheed and hence a good guinea pig to compare democracy and dictatorship. So, if there is such a thing as a “Dictator meter”, and Maumoon was used as a measuring weight to gauge dictatorship, what would be Nasheed – a dictator or democratic leader?

Main characteristics of “why” Maumoon was branded a dictator are; nepotism, corruption, 8 appointed Presidential Members of Parliament, non-independency of judiciary, absence of freedom of speech, absence of press freedom, controlling state media, absence of freedom of expression, absence of free and fair elections, arbitrary detention and arrests and appointed Island Chiefs. To someone new in Maldives politics, it would be a surprise to know that, in the short 3 years of Nasheed’s regime, he displayed all these traits and even some more than Maumoon. A detailed analysis of these characteristics of Maumoon as a dictator, compared with the supposedly democratic leader Nasheed is reviewed in another separate article (DICTATOR MAUMOON VS DEMOCRATIC LEADER NASHEED).

The difference is that even though Nasheed demonstrated his true self as a full-fledged dictator, there were democratic values that he upheld, which made him a champion of democracy to his Western backers.

What divides the two leaders cum dictators are while Maumoon was against multi-religious freedom, it was one of Nasheed’s most praised character according to his Western friends. Nasheed was also in favour of providing LGBT rights. And as an additional plus point, in Nasheed’s short term in office, he did not torture prisoners in jail.

From this tangled and politically divided mess of democracy and dictatorship, it is very difficult to make out head or tail. Furthermore, the possibility of finding a leader, who calls him or herself a DICTATOR is not theoretically possible. Instead, dictators have ordinary titles such as “My President”, “Supreme Leader”, “Inthihaabee Raees” (Elected President) and other similar monikers. That's because 'dictator' has become a pejorative term assigned to certain rulers by their opposition and other powerful nations, such as the United States, United Kingdom, Israel and many others to promote their agenda.

Sometimes, it is questionable what is better, a dictator or a democratic leader. Most of the countries recently destroyed or are being destroyed by powerful countries in the name of importing democracy was thriving economically under the so called “dictatorships”. Good examples are Libya and Syria.

In the name of regime change or importing democracy, Iraq was destroyed. The domino effects of chaos, famine, refugees are still continuing today. What is worse the torture by Saddam in Abu Ghraib jail or the torture by US forces in Abu Ghraib jail? It would not be unfair to state, for wealth, power and domination sometimes democratic countries use imaginary Weapons of Mass Destruction or an imaginary dictator.

Some dictators see themselves as a transition to democracy – Nasheed’s rants about democracy to gain power and later him becoming allergic to democracy when in power, is a good example.

Others even allow limited freedom of expression, as long as the expression, written or spoken, doesn’t directly challenge the dictator’s rule. This resembles the “Thihineh Nukiyene” or translated as “You Can’t Say That” campaign run during Nasheed’s regime by his party, Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) to thwart opposition’s freedom of expression.

There have been dictators who got there legally. Adolf Hitler, for example, was appointed chancellor, or head of government, by President Paul von Hindenburg in 1933. After Hindenburg died, Hitler made himself Fü­hrer (a combination of president and chancellor). Nasheed came to power after winning an election, which his opponent Maumoon claimed was rigged. Indirectly the finger is pointed towards the former Elections Commissioner, ex MDP founder member Fuad and former Elections Commission member Saabe (Nasheed’s cousin MP Eva’s husband). Hence a democratically elected leader or one claimed to be democratically elected does not necessarily have to be democratic.

Mostly a dictatorship is commonly thought of as one person, the dictator himself. Usually, there is one man at the top, but occasionally the top ruler answers to some extent to a dictatorial political party. The leader of the party has no named successor. The dictator almost never has a named successor - one oddly common trait among different types of dictatorships. MDP has an appointed one and only supreme leader called Nasheed, making him the unquestionably uncontestable unelected leader forever.

Many of these dictators foster cults of personality, a form of hero worship in which the masses are fed propaganda declaring their leader to be flawless and in some cases divine. Nasheed has the worst record in Maldivian history as the leader who went against Islamic principles and values but his Muslim support base is completely blind and oblivious to this fact.

Depending on which side of the fence you stand, the hazy line between a dictator and a democratic leader is warped and distorted, until it fits to your supporting beliefs.

So, is Nasheed a dictator who wants to look democratic or a democratic dictator?