An old image of Fuvahmulak, copyright Wikipedia
The arrival at this half-way station, of a train of thought that had departed some time back, reflects on the dominant current political philosophy of the country.
It’s a deeply personal, highly introspective piece seeking causes. It is not intended, in any manner, to be prescriptive.
The more mature democracies of the World
In the larger democracies of the world, political philosophy seems to be captured between the extremes of deep conservatism and unrestrained liberalism. A shift from left to the right, or vice versa, never seems to be permanent when viewed from a longer-term perspective. In the US, Carter followed Nixon who is then replaced by Reagan, followed by Bush but then onwards to Clinton. In the UK, Thatcher’s conservatism was followed by Blair. In Australia, liberal governments are replaced by conservate governments, Fraser by Bob Hawke and Keating then onward to John Howard.
Internal dynamics of the country, creeping inflation, rising unemployment, perception of migrant workers, maverick politicians, the prevailing ethos of a given moment in history, amongst other factors, move the needle right or left in elections. Changing winds move the needle back again. But the larger ethos of the country, of the larger democracies, does not seem to be fixed. They display a dynamism borne of national and international prevailing winds.
While here in the Maldives
However, here in the Maldives, for more than 4 decades on, we stand witness to a single economic philosophy, a mode of government that is fashioned by popularist politics, leaning towards ultra liberalism, mostly unbound by economics or fiscal reality.
The degree of popularist politics is evidently on the rise. Governments have changed, especially in the last 15 years between the 2 strong political movements (albeit in different names), but the one constant seems to be increasing populist policies, negative fiscal implications of which are on the increase.
The fact that politicians, of different shades and hues, facing different elections in changing times and circumstances, all promise and implement increasingly high fiscal impact policies without reference to cost saving or income increasing modalities, may perhaps be interpreted that they, the politicians believe that this is exactly what the people want. And therefore, it’s the way to win elections.
The fact that citizens ‘en-masse’, ask for and keep on increasing their demand for high value projects with increasing expenditure outlooks accompanied with low, or in most cased negative income earning prospects, can only mean that this is what the citizenry want.
More remarkably the fact that only isolated voices can be heard raising concern, let alone sounding the alarm bells, which can only mean that this is not a problem for the citizenry at large and is in fact, what the larger public wants.
It is in this context of what now seems to be an irreversible trend of ballooning high fiscal impact policies with no thought to income increasing measures, that my confusion arises.
The reason for my confusion
These thoughts have come to the forefront, not just as a student of economics who remains steadfast in the principle of ‘No Free Lunch’. But also as a lifelong professional student who has thoroughly mixed up the principles of anthropology, human sociology and a host of other disciplines including that of human settlement.
Our forefathers who braved the seas and settled on these geographically isolated islands, with sparse flora and fauna, would be, I’m confident hardy people. Even if not willing, definitely not afraid to build their life and livelihood by themselves. They would not have settled in these islands, if they were looking for regular handouts from a benevolent neighbor or a strong central government.
I am finishing these thoughts sitting in a hotel in Fuvahmulak, where I arrived yesterday after a rough crossing from Addu by RTL ferry. We were travelling in air-conditioned comfort on a twin-engine speed boat. But the young, the novice and the experienced travelers, including this old soul too, were troubled by that rough crossing. Yesterday, a diving dhoni, together with their customers faced adversity on the unruly waves of Fuvahmulak.
After the harbor, built in December 2002, and the air strip that opened on the 11th of November 2011, arrival and departure from this island is a far cry from the peril filled moments of yesteryears. Today you can arrive at Fuvahmulak and depart by air, or by sea on fast moving launches.
For a moment in time I was MD of MTCC and witnessed to myself, how the urban life of islands and the livelihood of the people dramatically change when they have access to a safe harbor.
I am sure that when the earliest travelers, the forefathers of the descendants of Fuvahmulak, even if they first arrived here by accident, decided to stay and built a home, not because it was the easiest island to come to and depart from.
Yesterday, as we neared the island of Fuvahmulak, and the waves became more prominent, I could not help reflect on this piece which I had been struggling with, for some time.
Surely, those who initially decided to inhabit this island of Fuvahmulak, and build a life and living, would have been prepared to fend for themselves. To grow a family and build a community that would be hardy, resilient and self-sufficient.
Of course, not every island face the same daunting prospects as Fuvahmulak. But, by and large, we all live on small islands. Yet, our forefathers decided to build their homes on these islands. Islands that are difficult to arrive at, with practically no land mammals, or rich agricultural wealth to feed and grow a family on. Yet they did arrive, chose to stay and not just survived. But indeed thrived.
And I can’t help but believe that our forefathers would have had a very different outlook on shaping a life dependent on the favor of others, be it neighboring islands or a central government. It’s them who built this nation. It’s their attitude, their way of life, their thinking that crafted the ethos, the culture of this nation.
No, I am sure, that this present attitude of deciding to continue to ‘ask for more’, always more, instead of fashioning something we can afford to, would have been foreign to our ancestors.
So when did this change occur and how long did it take? What forces fashioned this move towards, what leftist economists call a dependency model. It’ll be an interesting and deeply rewarding intellectual exercise just to understand the cause, the process that crafted this effect. Even if it’s too late to reverse it.
The Creed
In 2018 I penned and published the Creed, my Creed which I append below. Those thoughts were borne in the context of a presidential contender, quite publicly, in fact in a campaign rally, offering his blessing for a national value system of ‘take what you want, when you want’. That it is, in his very words, OK to ‘beg, borrow, or steal’ from the public purse. That your personal needs and wants, trump the ethos of carrying your own weight.
I end this thought, repeating the words I penned then. I believe my forefathers, those who actually found and built this nation and crafted an ethos and culture will, if not in word, but in thought, will decidedly agree.
THE CREED
From the toil of your hands,
Shall you earn your daily bread.
From the sweat of your brow,
Shall you nourish your family.
From the silent dignity of your work,
Shall you take pride in your self.
From the combined effort of all,
Shall we make this nation strong.