When governments use money, contracts and jobs to shape elections, history shows it can end badly.
As Maldivians edge towards local council elections in April 2026, the economy feels less like a neutral backdrop and more like a lever in the hands of power. Inflation is stubborn, foreign reserves are thin, and the black-market dollar has crossed MVR 20, a record high that pushes up prices from fish at the harbour to flour in the shop.
Allegations are swirling that the government, through the Finance Ministry, is delaying legally mandated payments to political parties, leaving opposition groups struggling to fund their campaigns. At the same time, public (state-owned) companies are reportedly withholding payments to private companies or suppliers, forcing many small and medium-sized enterprises to scale down, lay off staff, or close altogether.
At the same time, state-owned companies are reportedly hiring hundreds of people for temporary positions across the country — jobs that critics claim are tied, directly or implicitly, to supporting the ruling party. The same tactic was alleged ahead of April’s parliamentary elections, when voters were warned, in some cases openly, that a change in government could mean a change in their paycheque.
None of this is unique to the Maldives. Around the world, incumbents have mastered a century-old playbook: tighten or loosen fiscal taps, tilt administrative resources, and use state (or state-adjacent) bodies to influence election outcomes, particularly at the local level, where a handful of jobs, contracts or subsidies can swing an entire council seat.
A Global Playbook — And Its Pitfalls
Around the world, incumbents have refined a century-old strategy: bend fiscal taps, deploy public resources, and blur the lines between state and party. It’s particularly potent in local elections, where a handful of jobs, contracts or subsidies can swing a ward.
History shows that using economic leverage in elections can backfire, often dramatically.
In Nigeria in 2023, a hurried currency redesign pulled old notes from circulation too quickly, leaving a cash-dependent economy paralysed just weeks before national elections. Markets froze, protests erupted, and the Supreme Court stepped in. The ruling party lost ground in key states, showing how economic disruption can alienate even loyal voters.
In Spain in 2023, authorities uncovered an extensive vote-buying scheme in Melilla involving dozens of people, including party officials. The scandal spread nationally, damaging the party’s reputation far beyond the city. Local manipulations can quickly escalate into nationwide political crises.
In Uganda in 2016, after years of cash handouts and giveaways, activists ran a campaign encouraging voters to accept gifts but reject coercion. In several constituencies, incumbents’ vote shares collapsed. Patronage isn’t foolproof — voters can take the money and still rebel.
In Britain in the 1980s, Westminster Council leaders sold public housing in marginal wards to change voter demographics. Courts later ruled the scheme unlawful, bankrupting its architect politically and financially. Manipulating economic levers to alter the electorate can carry legal and personal costs.
In Brazil after 1999, a reform allowed judges to remove any elected official caught buying votes. More than a thousand politicians lost office in a decade. Where legal accountability exists, economic coercion can end careers overnight.
Other countries have seen similar tactics. In Turkey in 2023, pre-election wage hikes and retirement benefits briefly boosted support for the government, but post-election austerity increased hardship. Pakistan in 2024 experienced a mobile blackout on election day, which disrupted communication and lowered turnout. In Hungary, taxpayer-funded government ads before polls gave the ruling party what OSCE observers described as an “undue advantage.” In Georgia and the Western Balkans, jobs and contracts are often linked to political loyalty in local elections. In Venezuela, access to food and basic services has been used to control voters during times of economic scarcity.
The Stakes for Maldives
Even without a signed order to withhold funds, the combination of hard-currency scarcity, high inflation, and rising arrears can chill opposition activity. When state-owned enterprises simultaneously ramp up hiring, the incentive signal is unmistakable: align, or be left out.
Critics say this power could pressure people in the local council elections, the first major test before the 2028 presidential vote, and could sway public opinion.
The lesson from abroad is stark: using the economy as a campaign tool can feel like a masterstroke — until it collapses under its own weight. In politics, as in finance, overreach is often the most expensive mistake.