The enactment of a constitutional amendment by the Muizzu administration on Wednesday marks a significant moment in Maldivian politics, one that may reverberate far beyond the immediate political sphere. Sold as a measure to stabilise governance and curtail the influence of powerful business figures, the changes raise concerns about the erosion of democratic norms and the centralisation of power.
The amendment’s passage through Parliament was extraordinarily rapid. Introduced late on Tuesday night, it was debated, reviewed, and approved in a single day before being signed into law by President Mohamed Muizzu on Wednesday evening. The rushed process allowed little opportunity for scrutiny or public engagement, a troubling departure from democratic principles. Critics, including members of the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP), have decried the lack of transparency, with some describing the process as emblematic of a government more concerned with expediency than accountability.
Central to the amendment is a provision that mandates the loss of parliamentary seats for members who defect, are expelled from their parties, or, in the case of independent MPs, join a party mid-term. While this may ostensibly strengthen party loyalty and deter instability, it could also silence dissent within parties, giving leadership outsized control over members. Rumours of defections within the ruling Progressive National Congress (PNC) only add to the perception that the amendment is a defensive move to secure the party’s parliamentary supermajority.
The changes also expand presidential powers, granting the head of state greater authority over national policies, government agencies, and development plans. Such concentration of power, while defended as necessary for effective governance, risks undermining the balance of power between the executive and the legislature. The amendment further requires parliamentary or public approval for decisions on foreign troop deployments, territorial changes, and certain constitutional revisions—moves that seem democratic on the surface but may simply consolidate decision-making within a government-dominated Parliament.
The broader political context cannot be ignored. President Muizzu has faced mounting criticism over foreign exchange regulations that require tourist establishments to convert a portion of their revenues into Maldivian Rufiyaa. Opposition from the influential tourism sector has been fierce, yet the administration remains resolute, framing the policy as essential to economic sovereignty. The timing of the amendment, alongside this economic standoff, suggests an administration increasingly reliant on consolidating control to weather political and economic storms.
Public response has been swift, with protests erupting near Parliament on the day of the vote. Security forces cordoned off roads and maintained a heavy presence, a stark reminder of the tensions simmering beneath the surface of Maldivian politics.
As the dust settles, questions linger about the long-term implications of this amendment. While it may secure short-term stability for the ruling party, it risks alienating opposition voices and centralising authority in ways that could prove detrimental to democratic governance.
Stability achieved at the expense of open debate and institutional balance is unlikely to endure. The Maldives’ young democracy must be protected, not weakened, and its leaders must remember that lasting legitimacy comes from the people, not from consolidating power.
