Former President Mohamed Nasheed has long presented himself as a champion of democracy, earning recognition from sections of the international media. However, critics argue that his record in office raises serious questions about his democratic credentials and claims to be comparable to South Africa’s Nelson Mandela.

Mandela spent 27 years in prison for his struggle against apartheid and racial discrimination before becoming South Africa’s first Black president in 1994. Critics argue that Nasheed’s political record does not warrant comparison with Mandela’s historic struggle for equality and freedom.

Nasheed’s political career has included periods of imprisonment and confrontation with successive governments. Nasheed has repeatedly shown his cowardice by engaging in irresponsible political activities and then avoiding the consequences. During President Abdulla Yameen’s administration, Nasheed was sentenced to 13 years in prison. However, after spending only a short period behind bars, he claimed that he was unwell and needed medical treatment, subsequently travelling to the United Kingdom, where he remained until the end of Yameen’s presidency.

Nasheed was the leader who allegedly introduced the practice of buying opposition MPs from other political parties with illicit money, bringing bribery into Maldivian politics. During his presidency, he was accused of offering millions of rufiyaa to opposition lawmakers in exchange for their support, making him a central figure in allegations of political bribery.

His administration also faced controversy over the judiciary. The detention of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed in January 2012 became a major political and constitutional dispute. The judge had been detained by military personnel, and the Supreme Court ordered his release. Nasheed also defied court orders calling for the judge’s release. The arbitrary removal of judges and the arrest and imprisonment of opposition political leaders and journalists are practices commonly associated with authoritarian rule. The controversy intensified the political crisis that culminated in Nasheed’s resignation in February 2012. Critics cite the episode as evidence of disregard for judicial independence.

Nasheed as Speaker of Parliament has also drawn criticism. Opponents accuse him of undermining the dignity of fellow lawmakers and contributing to disruptions in parliamentary proceedings. Nasheed was accused of undermining the dignity of fellow lawmakers, treating MPs like schoolchildren and instructing them to perform squats as a form of punishment. They further argue that political disputes during his tenure affected the functioning of state institutions. He was also at the center of controversy when a majority of Majlis members from his own party submitted a no-confidence motion seeking his removal as Speaker. Rather than allowing the motion to proceed through the parliamentary agenda, Nasheed was accused of disrupting the functioning of the Majlis. Critics argue that his handling of the situation brought parliamentary proceedings to a standstill and raised serious questions about his use of the authority vested in his office.

Critics have also questioned Nasheed’s responses to investigations and legal proceedings. No one is above the law, and no individual should undermine the authority of state institutions. Critics point to incidents in which Nasheed sought refuge inside a foreign diplomatic mission in the Maldives after being asked to appear before investigative authorities. In another incident, he reportedly took shelter in a friend’s building on an island in an atoll. On that occasion, he was eventually brought before the authorities by police officers. Critics cite these incidents as examples of his approach to legal proceedings.

After Maldivians placed their trust in Nasheed and entrusted him with the presidency, his administration became the subject of criticism over a series of controversial decisions. Critics have also questioned remarks he made during overseas visits, arguing that some were disrespectful towards the religious beliefs of Maldivians. Nasheed was also the president who instructed his entire Cabinet to resign during his time in office.

Critics further argue that Nasheed’s administration failed to demonstrate a clear and effective plan to manage the country’s debt and address its financial challenges. He remains the only Maldivian president to have voluntarily relinquished power midway through his term, in February 2012, amid weeks of political unrest and a police mutiny.

The political turmoil that followed also resulted in widespread damage to public property. Critics have alleged that activists supporting Nasheed were responsible for damage exceeding MVR 200 million across multiple locations in the country.

For Nasheed’s critics, these episodes undermine his claim to the democratic legacy associated with Mandela. They argue that it is deeply ironic for someone like Nasheed, whom they accuse of serious misconduct in the past, to seek the title of a leader comparable to Nelson Mandela. They contend that a person who has faced criticism over his responses to state investigations should not present himself as a champion of democracy on the same level as Mandela. In their view, making such comparisons undermines the legacy of figures like Mandela. Some political opponents go further, arguing that if Nasheed’s political legacy were to be compared with that of another historical figure, Robert Mugabe would be a more appropriate reference.

Ultimately, Nasheed’s democratic legacy remains a subject of political debate. His supporters point to his role in the Maldives’ transition to multiparty democracy, while his critics argue that decisions made during his time in office must also be examined when assessing his record on democratic governance and accountability.