Government crackdown: it makes a good headline. It captures the reader’s attention. But it may not represent reality. Whatever the case, it has served its purpose — at least from the international media’s perspective. “Peaceful protest voices dissent without issue” isn't going to titillate the readers of the New York Times.
But this is precisely what happened in the Maldives on Monday, 10th October. In Fuvahmulah, a small group of civilians took to the streets, where President Yameen was inaugurating the construction of a new sewage system in the city, to voice their dissent with the government. They were protesting the change in subsidies to electricity and rice, criticising the current administration’s policy. And the police presence respected the group’s right to assemble: there was no intimidation, no obstruction and no tear gas.
This is emblematic of democratic civil society in Maldives. Both protesters and supporters of the government respecting one another’s point of view, despite clear disagreements. Freedom of assembly and speech were exercised without disturbing the public peace — as they should be. This is democracy at work; in keeping with the Maldives strong tradition of civil activism. Lest we forget, it was public protests that led to the resignation of a previous president.
This may seem like a non-event. However, it is worth highlighting because it exposes the incongruity between coverage of the Maldives in the international media and the situation on the ground. Articles written in the offices of London and Washington DC paint a picture of a tyrannical dictatorship where only one opinion is permitted: the government line. Fed by those who spread misinformation for personal gain, the journalists faithfully reproduce what they have been told. And why wouldn't they? After all, it makes a great story.
But inaccurate news reporting is irresponsible. Through misrepresenting the present, it can change the Maldives’ future. We have already seen the potentially damaging effects that articles like these have: negative perceptions in the international media can undermine tourism. This only hurts the many hardworking Maldivians that rely on the sector for their livelihoods; those with the least control over the way the nation is viewed in the global imagination. It is simply unjust. Rather than rushing to the scoop, journalists need to, as a matter of principle, check the ‘facts’ they report.
Although protests like this show a civil society in robust health, we cannot pretend everything is perfect. There is still much work to be done. For example, the government needs to continue to consolidate the democratic culture that the Maldives has made such progress on. Though we must bear in mind that this is not a challenge unique to the nation: it is a universal amongst young democracies the world over.
Crucially, the Maldives needs a credible opposition to hold the government to account. They could start by focusing on the domestic situation, rather than frolicking about in the spotlight of the international media. It is just a start, but it’s an easy one. Instead, they sink to ever more extraordinary and absurd claims in a bid to stay relevant in the global market of media stories. They should be challenging the government and strengthening the political mechanisms in place. Maybe then their democratic odes to the press would hold some legitimacy. The Maldives doesn’t need this empty talk like this; it needs an opposition that acts.
“Peaceful protest voices dissent without issue” admittedly is not world news. But this does not create the need to falsify stories. Selling papers should never come at the expense of hardworking Maldivians jobs. And those that feed these stories to the press should certainly not claim to represent the same people whose jobs they endanger.
The mirage of a good story
