Stopping Political Dismissals Requires Stopping Political Appointments

Political influence in state institutions and state-owned enterprises (SOEs) remains one of the greatest challenges facing the Maldivian system of governance. It has become an established norm that, with every change of government, political differences trigger mass dismissals alongside the appointment of new personnel for political gain. However, we must confront a simple reality: political dismissals will only stop when political appointments stop.

Political Appointments: Root of the Problem

The issue of politically motivated firings begins at the recruitment stage. Instead of evaluating candidates on education, experience, and merit, it is common practice to offer jobs as rewards for campaign work or party loyalty. This practice extends well beyond strictly political posts, heavily affecting general operational roles across state companies.

Because politically appointed staff are not hired through transparent mechanisms, their employment remains perpetually vulnerable to political shifts or regime changes. Since these are not genuinely permanent roles, they can be terminated at any moment. Regrettably, when employees brought in through this system lose their jobs, their avenues for seeking justice or obtaining compensation are extremely limited.

The Link Between Hiring and Firing

Politically motivated hiring and firing are two sides of the same coin. When a new administration takes office, it routinely dismisses the political appointees of the previous regime. These positions are then handed out to the new government's supporters, campaign workers, relatives and close associates of senior officials, or individuals backed by influential figures. This is the endless cycle of staff turnover in the public sector.

If appointments are not grounded in merit and capability, it is naive to expect that legal or ethical standards will be respected when it comes to dismissals. These roles are rarely created out of genuine organizational need; they are custom-tailored posts designed for specific individuals. Naturally, as soon as the patrons who arranged these roles lose power, the jobs vanish.

The Impact on the State

The core issue draining both the state and public enterprises today is the proliferation of political posts and the sheer volume of political hires poured into SOEs. To date, the current administration has not disclosed the exact number of its political appointees. Meanwhile, new hires in state companies are counted in the thousands.

Excessive spending on political roles and redundant jobs across various ministries is a major driver of the state's inflated expenditure. A vast portion of state revenue is consumed by salaries and administrative overheads, leaving precious little for national development and economic stabilization. Consequently, essential projects must be funded through foreign aid or domestic and external loans.

State companies face a similar predicament. Very few state-owned enterprises operate at a profit. Essential service providers—such as MIFCO, Fenaka, and STELCO—are saddled with billions in debt. Many are effectively bankrupt or on the brink of insolvency. A considerable number of companies exist solely as cost centers with negligible assets. Even profitable entities like MTCC and STO must spend a significant chunk of their earnings paying salaries for staff added for political reasons. As a result, the net return to the state falls far short of these companies' actual revenues.

To cover these expenses, successive administrations have accumulated mountains of debt, forcing the state to spend billions of rufiyaa each year on debt servicing—or to take out new loans just to repay existing ones. The state faces substantial debt repayments, putting the Maldivian economy on precarious footing.

Legal Burden and Institutional Erosion

Unlawful dismissals result in court-ordered compensation payouts, while the artificial inflation of job roles inflicts severe financial damage on the public purse. Furthermore, these practices erode public trust in the Civil Service and state companies, undermining the independence of key institutions.

While the current administration announced plans to reduce political roles and downsize staff in state-owned enterprises—aiming for a 30% reduction within three months—recruitment has continued unabated since the announcement. Hundreds of jobs were handed out in the run-up to the recent council elections. Following recent reshuffles in senior government posts, dismissed officials are routinely reappointed to high-paying roles as advisors, ambassadors, and other positions, each carrying a heavy financial cost for the state.

A Lack of Genuine Intent

Resolving this crisis ultimately requires sincere political will from the nation's leadership. But is that realistic?

Establishing robust legal frameworks to ensure merit-based recruitment is entirely doable. However, passing laws is meaningless if they are not enforced. Laws already exist, yet compliance often hinges entirely on the goodwill of those in power. Despite repeated promises from successive governments to cap political appointments at 700, both the former MDP administration and the current PNC government have exceeded this threshold.

Protesting only when dismissals occur will not stop the cycle. Politically motivated terminations will only end when political influence is removed from the recruitment process itself and replaced with a system built on merit. Reforming the system to evaluate employment based on performance rather than political affiliation is essential for the nation's long-term progress and economic security.