Religion and authoritarianism in the Maldives: Is another authoritarian reversal in the Maldives imminent?

Abstract

AbstractThe Maldives commenced its transition to democracy after its first multiparty elections in 2008. This was challenging due to the Maldives being a Muslim nation, its authoritarian legacy of monarchical rule before independence, and by dictatorship after independence. This article analyzes the postindependence rule periods of Ibrahim Nasir and Maumoom Abdul Gayoom, which were akin to one‐man dictatorships. The third autocratic president postindependence, Abdulla Yameen, was an electoral authoritarian as he implemented authoritarian measures in a multi‐party context. I assess if religion provided political legitimacy to these authoritarian leaders or if religion was exploited by leaders to gain political support and civic spaces. Theories of authoritarianism, religious populism, electoral authoritarianism, as well as concepts of the ulema‐state alliance and the rentier state are utilized. In addition to their authoritarian legacy, democratic presidents like Mohamed Nasheed and Mohamed Solih had grappled with politicians' manipulation of religion through political Islam, Islamic nationalism, and fundamentalism to derail democracy by equating it to Westernization. These events resonate with Samuel Huntington's description of the conflict between the West and Islam as a clash of civilizations. Crimes against liberal thinkers by Islamic extremists are an added challenge. There is a real danger of another authoritarian reversal in the Maldives.