Presidential candidates: showing civility and mutual respect

'Firstly, I would like to say that, because of my position [as president/presidential candidate] I don’t want to enter a religious matter and ask people to act [in a religious matter] in certain way. That is so, because this programme itself is a political programme. And now I am talking to you about the future policies of my government, that is, if I am elected. So, it is not suitable for this forum to enter religious matters.'

Those are the words of President Gayoom and DRP presidential candidate for the upcoming presidential election on TVM Siyaasath (youtube link) programme last night, in his answer to a question about a religious matter. While it is another matter for anyone not to believe in President Gayoom's sincerity in those words and matters of religion, I think, all presidential candidates, and especially a president, should uphold a principle contained in those words: principle of civility and mutual respect for all citizens.

As a president or as a presidential candidate talking in a public forum, he or she must be aware that religious matters are contentious and that there exists reasonable disagreements on the conceptions of good life in our society. A president is a president for all citizens, not for one section of the society. Despite our disagreements on the matters of good life, on the public forum or civil society, we all must recognize each other as co-equals. For a president or a presidential candidate, in those capacities, to endorse one position or the other on religious matters on public forum is bound to be seen as not acting in a civil manner. It is, therefore, a matter of civility and mutual respect for all citizens that he or she refrain from publicly endorsing one or the other position.

This does not mean religious language and religious people must be removed from the political public sphere. Far from that. That is unthinkable in a society in which religion is very much part of politics and public life. But this does mean as presidents or presidential candidates talking in the political public sphere or public forums in those capacities they must be aware of the existence of reasonable disagreements, and hence that their religious language be used such that they are accessible to all citizens.

To illustrate these points, Hassan Saeed's recourse to religion, on the TVM Presidential Q&A, to urge that all citizens must vote responsibly, is acceptable and accessible to all the people as citizens. He defended a political value -- that is, being responsible citizens in voting -- that should be part of every democracy. He justified that position on religious grounds so that his justification amounts to an overlapping consensus on a matter that is purely political and part of democracy. But, if he did that to urge not to vote a particular candidate simply because of say that candidate's religious belief (say, on the issue of burqa), then, that language would not be accessible to all citizens, and thus fails to show civility and mutual respect towards all as citizens.

However, it may be totally legitimate that a presidential candidate or a president in another capacity to defend his or her position on a religious matter.

This principle becomes more urgent because, to my knowledge, the current constitution has removed the previous function of president as the highest authority in promulgating the tenets of Islam.

Women's rights, Anni, and Dr Aminath Jameel

All indications seem to show that MDP candidate for president, Mohamed Nasheed (Anni), would not go ahead with his initial nomination for his running mate, Dr Aminath Jameel. MDP’s religious council objected to the nomination on the grounds that Islamic Sharia forbids women heading the high office. It would be extremely hard to doubt Anni’s sincerity in his belief that we should provide fair value of political liberties without distinction of gender. It seems, however, apparent Anni has compromised his standing under the pressure of the religious Right for fear of losing their votes. If so, there is room for doubting Anni’s sincerity.

This incident has shown two things: there is a ‘legitimation crisis’ with regard to certain freedoms (or human rights). Even if the elites in the parliament and the government endorse equal rights for women, there seems to be no significant public support for such endorsement. This would have been true of freedom of religion, had they provided that in the constitution. So, even if the constitution provides certain rights, these rights or liberties are merely formal, and not effective. This incident has shown, in practice, women stand no chance of actually making use of their rights to contest for high office.

On the other hand, what is more saddening to me is there is no public protest of any form whatever against Anni’s apparent compromise. To my knowledge anyway. Alternatively, there is no any encouragement or support for Anni’s nomination. I think such support or protest should come first from within the disadvantaged groups. I say this because there is always the criticism from the religious Right that ‘liberal’ rights are forced upon people, from the top; or ‘liberal’ rights are tools of a new form of ‘Western’ ‘imperialism’. Hence, it is important that the disadvantaged themselves show up. Here, NGOs working for women’s rights, women journalists, women Islamic scholars, women bloggers, and other civil society women actors must show up. In protesting against or supporting Anni's moves, we are not necessarily endorsing Dr Aminath Jameel as vice president. We could merely protest the apparent compromise based simply on gender distinction. And we could merely encourage Anni for his move to have nominated a woman for his running mate.

However, it may be already too late for such support or protest in this election.

'Adhaalath Could Control Islamic Ministry Under Gasim Government' - Minivan News

'The religious conservative Adhaalath party, which recently formed an alliance with the Republican (Jumhooree) Party ahead of presidential elections, has said it expects to control the new Ministry of Islamic Affairs pledged under a Republican government.

“We think the ministry will be under Adhaalath, but it is not confirmed,” said chief Adhaalath spokesperson Mohamed Shaheem Ali Said.

But Republican spokesperson Dr Hussein Rasheed Hassan said there was “no undertaking” to give Adhaalath the ministry, though he added it was a “natural thing to expect given that Adhaalath is very much promoting Islamic values” ' Read more here