Industrial relations changes in the Maldives: critical events and actors

• Author: Ali Najeeb,Mary Barrett
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/irj.12131
• Published date: 01 March 2016
• Date: 01 March 2016

Industrial relations changes in the

Maldives: critical events and actors

Ali Najeeb and Mary Barrett

ABSTRACT

This paper analyses recent industrial relations (IR) and political changes in the

Maldives. Critical incidents were compiled from interview and document data and

analysed using a quasi-grounded theory approach. The analysis shows that, precipi-

tated by the political events of September 2003, profound democratic and IR changes

took place, including the emergence of new IR actors and institutions. However, the

outcomes of these changes proved short-lived as old undemocratic practices were

reasserted. The paper highlights the reasons why democratic and IR changes occurred

as they did in the Maldives and why they reversed.

1 INTRODUCTION

The institutional perspective has shown how entities arise, acquire identities and inter-

ests and become actors in institutional contexts (Wood et al., 2014). Nevertheless,

some aspects of the institutional perspective and, within it, industrial relations (IR)

are still developing. For example, although institutional research emphasizes how

actors engage in institutional change, understanding of how those actors emerge is

still developing (Hwang and Colyvas, 2011). Further, until recently, IR research has

largely focused on advanced industrialized nations rather than emerging economies

(Kuruvilla and Erickson, 2002; Wood et al., 2014). Moreover, research typically links

IR outcomes to countries’economic policies rather than to their path of political

development (Thelen, 2009). Addressing these gaps, this paper examines the link

between political change and IR developments in the Maldives, considering the

following questions: (i) what is the nature and cause of political and IR changes in

the Maldives; (ii) how did political and IR changes occur; and (iii) why did the

changes occur as they did? To answer these questions, this paper employs an historical

institutional perspective to explore the role of actors in IR events (Thelen, 1999).

The paper covers IR issues in a relatively under-researched context, the Maldives.

The study makes three contributions. First, it systematically uses an historical institu-

tional perspective and the literature on the Maldivian political economy to show how

institutional and IR change in the Maldives occurred, how new IR actors and institu-

tions were established through political modernization and how IR gains made as a

result of political changes backtracked with the reversal of democracy. It also pro-

vides a nuanced understanding of the fragility of democratic changes and provides

a more rigorous explanation of the extent to which they caused the February 2012

coup. Second, the study highlights the role of local and international actors at various

❒Correspondence should be addressed to Dr Ali Najeeb, Faculty of Business Management, Villa College,

QI Campus, Rah Dhebai Hingun, Male’–20373, Maldives; email: najeeb@villacollege.edu.mv

Industrial Relations Journal 47:2, 181–200

ISSN 0019-8692

© 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

stages of the Maldivian democratic journey. Third, by using a quasi-grounded theory

approach to define and evaluate critical change incidents, the study provides a prac-

tical solution to the problem of defining a time-span in which significant institutional

change can be seen to have taken place.

The paper is organized as follows. It first reviews the political and economic devel-

opment of the Maldives and discusses the role of institutional analysis in IR research.

Then, after outlining the study’s research method, it analyses political and IR change

in the Maldives since 2003, showing how specific actors influenced and/or emerged

from the changes. The final section discusses theoretical implications of the findings

and suggests future-research directions.

2 THE POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF THE MALDIVES

The Republic of Maldives consists of about 1190 tiny, low-lying coral islands

stretched across the equator in the Indian Ocean, with an entire territorial size of

859,000 km

2

. Only 192 islands are inhabited of which 101 have been developed as

self-contained tourist resorts (Ministry of Tourism, Arts and Culture (MTAC),

2014). The population of 310,000 belong to a common race, Maldivian; embrace

the same culture and religion, Islam; and speak a common language, Dhivehi

(DNP, 2012).

From the 1880s to the mid-1960s, the Maldives was governed by monarchies

(Rasheed, 2014). The political state during this period was controlled by the monar-

chical rulers, their families and elites. The monarchical rule was characterized by

the political desires and personal interests of the ruling class. The Maldives was a

British protectorate until 1965. However, as the British engagement with the

Maldives was intended to ensure political security for the Maldives rather than as a

means to develop a mechanism of democratic governance, the Maldives did not

inherit a political or legal system from the superior British institutional systems

(Rasheed, 2014). As a result, the Maldivian legal system is a complex mixture of

Shariah law and English civil and common law (MoFA, 2010).

The Maldives became a republic in 1953, but the First Republic lasted only eight

months before reverting to a Sultanate. The Second Republic was established in

1968. Until 2008, the President was elected by the Parliament and endorsed by the

public in a referendum. Between 1968 and 2008 Maldivians experienced two presiden-

cies. Fundamental rights such as freedom of association and freedom of speech were

suppressed under both presidencies (BHRC, 2012). In addition, income and wealth

distribution gaps widened, nepotism and corruption were rife (Amnesty Interna-

tional, 2005; US Department of State, 2009), and there was no separation of powers.

An embryonic opposition movement emerged in the 1990s, but its voice and discus-

sion of individual rights generally were silenced by government control of the media

(Shaheed and Upton, 2008). A personalized political system was created, which acted

as a barrier for the government to establish democratic governance during the 1990s

(Rasheed, 2014). A democratization process began in the early 2000s, leading to the

enactment of a new Constitution and the first multi-party election in 2008. Parliamen-

tary and local council elections followed in 2009 and 2010, respectively (MoFA, 2010).

Although free-market principles inherited from the period when the Maldives was a

British protectorate (Rasheed, 2014) and British trade dominated the region, trade

and economic activity did not develop until the 1970s. The Bora merchants who

dominated trade in the Maldives until 1960s also functioned in a weak institutional

182 Ali Najeeb and Mary Barrett

© 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd