The issue of 8 nominated members in our Parliament was as still is one of the most debated issues in Maldives. The main argument against such appointments has been that the 8 members give an undue advantage to the sitting President, against what may be the stand of the elected members.
A nominated Member of Parliament is not something which has been practiced by Maldives alone. It is still practiced in a lot of democracies around the world. What is the reason that brought so much negative thoughts to this practice?
The practice of Nominated Members of Parliament has been completely misused through out the rule of both President Nasir and Prsident Maumoon. The theory of giving a limited number of seats for nominated MPs was to enable representation of the most underrepresented part of the community in any Parliament, and also to ensure there were sufficient technocrats in the Parliament. However this had not been the use it was utilized for. In addition, countries which practice the system have a number of checks to ensure that these seats cannot be misused.
Singapore had Nominated Members of Parliament which was increased to nine in 1997. The nominees are selected by a Parliamentary select committee headed by the Speaker of Parliament. It is also a requirement that Nominated members do not belong to any Political Party.
In India, 12 MPs are nominated by the President, from people having special knowledge in literature, science or social services.
In both examples, these Members while being nominated MPs, cannot be sacked by the Executive, just like elected MPs. This enables them to take part in an unbiased manner, and not toe the Government line. From the next Parliament, Maldives will not have nominated MPs, hence any under represented people will continue to be so. A good example is Adhaalath Party. While having a considerable membership in total, they may not have sufficient in a single constituency to win a seat. However, in total they represent a significant percentage of the electorate to deserve representation in Parliament. The negative aspects which played in our nation was the main factor which resulted in Nominated MPs from being removed in the New Constitution. Sadly this is something which could have been used for the people and rather than removing it, there could have been strict guidelines for nominations, so that we will have a better represented Parliament.
The (New) Constitution is silent on the issue of the remaining Nominated MPs during the transition and both sides (MDP and DRP) are taking opposing views. The Constitution clearly does not give authority of appointing an MP to the President, however he has done it. The President’s nominations seem to have followed the old guard in nominating people who are from his Party and Alliance. I expected a well read person of Nasheed’s caliber to do better. While being a controversial issue, he could have won the respect of many if he had nominated 8 prefessionals who were Independents. During a period when our Parliament is undertaking some of its most important Bills, this action shows that President Nasheed also gives more priority to his Party than the People.
Posted by maldiveislands 