Last month, President Mohammed Muizzu announced seven new urban centres as part of the Maldives’ Sustainable Regional Development Policy, drawing criticism from political factions and development planners alike. The selection lacks any discernible justification, as they bypass the fundamental planning checklist, including geographic accessibility, economic viability, historical context, and demographic shifts. With no public consultation before the announcement, unclear selection criteria, and clear misalignment with these essential prerequisites, serious questions arise: Is Maldives’ long-term development planning now subject to political expediency, or worse, erratic decision-making?
This unilateral approach to urban development, bypassing established planning frameworks and stakeholder engagement, signals a concerning gap between democratic principles and development planning.
What’s at Stake
Few will dispute the necessity of decentralised, regionalised development in the Maldives. The scattered islands and vast waters, and the country’s fiscal reality make infrastructure and service provision to each inhabited island logistically and economically unviable. Climate change adds further urgency. Increasingly unpredictable weather and sea conditions now severely disrupt inter-island transport, making consolidated service delivery increasingly fraught. Historical settlement trends provide context for community development, while demographic shifts indicate where urban growth can be sustainably supported. The need for “centralised-decentralisation” or a hub-and-spoke model of development therefore has long been recognised by policy-makers and politicians. Brushing past these dynamics deepens existing fault lines:
a. Demographic Pressures in Malé
41% of the nation’s population is concentrated in Greater Malé Area, with projections showing this concentration reaching 64% by 2054. Combined with about 40% of the total foreign population also concentrated in Malé, the capital faces severe and multifaceted strain. This density has led to a housing crisis with soaring rents and overcrowded living conditions. Essential infrastructure systems – from waste management to electricity – are under intense pressure. Healthcare facilities are overtaxed, education systems struggle with capacity, and job creation for locals lags behind the need. These pressures affect both physical and mental wellbeing, particularly impacting vulnerable groups. Maintaining social cohesion and providing sufficient resources to preserve the human dignity of both local and migrant populations pose escalating challenges.
b. The Hollowing Out of Island Communities
The exodus to Malé threatens the very viability of island life. Maldives Census 2022 reveals that in 13 islands, more than 50% of the registered population now lives in Malé, while another 16 islands have lost 40-49% of their residents, while several smaller islands are expected to have populations below 1,000. This demographic shift fundamentally undermines islands’ productive capacity and economic viability. The remaining elderly population faces not just reduced care support but diminishing access to basic services. Local economies weaken as the consumer base shrinks and skilled workers depart, making it increasingly difficult to sustain even basic economic activities. This creates a self-reinforcing cycle where each departure makes the island less viable for those who remain.
c. Gender and Community Sustainability
Census data shows more than half of the population in Malé are migrants, with women now predominating among these migrant flows. Women relocate to access higher education, employment opportunities, and family duties. This creates a compound effect where remaining women face increased care responsibilities with decreased support networks. Any meaningful urban development strategy must address these gendered gaps in outer islands.
d. Climate Vulnerability and Connectivity
Escalating weather and oceanic variability are fundamentally impacting habitability. More frequent rough seas affect transport of goods and people, and also the essential supply chains for food, medicine and trade. Communities already struggling with limited resources face growing isolation during adverse weather. Urban centre designation must consider immediate accessibility, emergency-preparedness and long-term climate resilience, including the viability of maintaining reliable transport links and other infrastructure as weather conditions shift.
The Process Gap
The newly announced urban centres are part of the Sustainable Regional Development Policy, introduced by President Muizzu’s administration: Ungoofaaru (Raa), Eydhafushi (Baa), Naifaru (Lhaviyani), Mahibadhoo (Alifu Dhaalu), Nilandhoo (Faafu), Kudahuvadhoo (Dhaalu), and Fonadhoo (Laamu). The policy envisions these centers as regional hubs providing comprehensive services including healthcare, education, and economic opportunities.
However, the implementation raises several concerns, and the scepticism, surrounding the announcement stems not from the concept but from concerns about both the chosen islands and the process behind their selection:
a. Bypassed Population Centres:
The plan thus far bypasses the country’s largest population centres, most notably entire Addu, the whole of Huvadhoo Atoll, and entire Thiladhunmathi, including existing urban centres in those atolls.
b. Viability Concerns:
Instead, several designated islands are either small in population or face spatial constraints, raising questions about their capacity and viability to serve as regional hubs.
c. Accessibility Issues:
The announced groupings also raise significant accessibility questions by combining relatively distant atolls – as in the idea of residents from Huvadhoo and Addu travelling to Laamu for essential services. This proposition contradicts the very purpose of regional development, making their selection seem almost absurd.
d. Political Motivations:
The political undertones of certain selections are hard to ignore: choosing Fonadhoo over the much larger, more populous Gan in Laamu Atoll, and elevating the relatively small Faaf Nilandhoo to urban centre status (where the President’s sister serves as MP) – decisions that appear to favour political allies. Such choices leave little room for doubt about the actual criteria driving these selections.
The irony of this top-down approach lies in how it fundamentally contradicts the Maldives’ own decentralisation framework. By bypassing local and atoll councils and limiting stakeholder debate, the administration is effectively dismantling the architecture of local governance. Local councils, with their intimate understanding of local needs and community aspirations, should be at the forefront of this debate. Their exclusion, coupled with the absence of broader consultation with policymakers and development experts, has deprived the process of both local insight and the strategic vision necessary for aligning these urban centres with the nation’s development trajectory – a perspective essential for ensuring these hubs serve as sustainable catalysts for regional growth rather than becoming isolated, and then eventually abandoned infrastructure projects.
The Democracy Deficit
The urban centres controversy reflects a broader pattern of increasingly centralised and unilateral decision-making under the Muizzu administration. A year into his presidency, Muizzu appears to be systematically and unmistakeably consolidating power. The primary mechanism for this consolidation is the abuse of his commanding parliamentary majority, which enables policy implementation without meaningful scrutiny. Constitutional amendments that weaken MP independence through stringent anti-defection measures; proposed changes to grant the President sweeping authority over national planning; parallel efforts to restrict press freedom through new media legislation; and laws that bypass local councils, effectively negating their constitutional mandate are recent examples. These are alarming signs of a widening democratic vacuum where vital debate is systematically excluded in matters of national consequence. The urban centres designation exemplifies this deficit.
A More Responsible Path
The Government must take immediate action to restore democratic mandate by:
– Suspending current urban centre designations pending review
– Establishing a transparent and evidence-based framework
– Conduct wide consultation and creating meaningful participation with public and stakeholders including development planners
– Aligning selections with national development strategies, demographic dividend, sustainable development goals, and climate plans
The Fiscal Deficit and the Democratic Deficit: Risking International Support
Such governance by decree carries significant risks beyond domestic democratic erosion. Traditional donors and multilateral institutions will be wary of opaque projects. This is particularly concerning given the assistance andd investment needed given the scale of Maldives’ current debt situation. With traditional donors reducing funding across the board due to global economic pressures and shifting priorities, Maldives cannot afford to alienate partners through opaque governance and decree-based decisions, jeopardising access to remaining resources. The resultant financing constraints force reliance on less favourable credit terms, exacerbating the country’s debt vulnerabilities and threatening its development trajectory.
Note: A version of this article was originally published in ORF.
Leave a Reply