The struggle for disability rights in the Maldives reflects a familiar pattern seen across developing nations – the gulf between legislative promise and practical reality. As someone who has spent over a decade advocating for disability rights in our island nation, I’ve witnessed firsthand how progressive legislation, while crucial, often fails to manifest as meaningful change in the lives of persons with disabilities. Our journey since ratifying the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) in 2010 illustrates this complex dynamic, where well-intentioned policies frequently stumble in their implementation, leaving our disability community to navigate a landscape of partial reforms and unfulfilled commitments.
The enactment of the Disability Act marked what many hoped would be a transformative moment for disability rights in our country. The Act’s comprehensive framework promised to reshape how our society approaches disability inclusion, establishing clear rights and protections across multiple sectors. Yet fourteen years later, the lived experiences of persons with disabilities reveal a starkly different reality. The Census 2022 data showing that 7% of our population lives with disabilities underscores not just the scope of the challenge, but the urgency of addressing the systemic failures that continue to marginalize this significant portion of our community. This is not merely a matter of policy implementation – it represents a fundamental challenge to our social fabric and our commitment to building an equitable society.
The systemic inadequacies in our current framework manifest most visibly in our healthcare and education sectors, where the absence of coherent implementation mechanisms creates cascading barriers for persons with disabilities. Take our healthcare system, where the lack of standardized disability assessment protocols has created a Byzantine process for accessing essential support services. The disability registration system, meant to facilitate access to monthly allowances and support services, has instead become a labyrinth of bureaucratic hurdles. The requirement for specialist medical documentation particularly disadvantages those in our atolls, where such expertise is scarce or non-existent. This creates a perverse situation where those most in need of support must undertake expensive journeys to Male’ simply to prove their eligibility for assistance. The system, in its current form, effectively penalizes those it was designed to help, creating additional barriers rather than removing them.
Our education sector presents an equally troubling picture of implementation failure. The 2021 revision of our Inclusive Education Policy represented a progressive shift in approach, moving from a special needs model to one of inclusive education. However, the reality in our schools reveals how policy intentions can be hollowed out by inadequate implementation mechanisms. While the establishment of Special Education Needs units in 87% of government schools appears impressive in statistics, the on-ground reality reveals these units often operating without adequate resources, qualified staff, or clear operational guidelines. The requirement for Individual Education Plans for students with complex learning profiles exemplifies this implementation gap – mandated by policy but rarely translated into meaningful educational support due to lack of training, resources, and monitoring mechanisms.
The employment landscape for persons with disabilities reveals similar systemic failures, where well-intentioned regulations founder on the rocks of poor implementation and weak enforcement. The recent regulation on providing employment opportunities to persons with disabilities (R-9/2024) illustrates this dynamic perfectly. While establishing a registry of job-seeking persons with disabilities, it fails to include disability representation in the technical committee overseeing its implementation – a critical oversight that speaks to the broader problem of excluding disability voices from decision-making processes. This exclusion often results in technically compliant but practically ineffective solutions, a pattern repeated across multiple sectors.
The infrastructure and accessibility landscape in the Maldives presents perhaps the most visible manifestation of our implementation failures. The regulation for Minimum Standards of Accessibility, while appearing comprehensive on paper, reveals critical gaps when examined closely. By limiting its scope to specific categories of buildings, it leaves vast segments of our built environment outside its purview. Even where standards exist, poor enforcement mechanisms and lack of technical expertise have resulted in what I call “checkbox accessibility” – features that meet basic requirements on paper but fail to provide genuine accessibility in practice. This is evident in countless examples across our built environment: ramps constructed at unsafe gradients, elevators installed without audio announcements, and “accessible” toilets that fail to accommodate standard wheelchairs. These failures stem not from lack of guidelines but from a deeper systemic inability to translate technical requirements into practical solutions.
Transportation infrastructure in our island nation presents unique challenges that require innovative solutions, yet our current approach demonstrates the limitations of piecemeal reforms. The Raajje Transport Link (RTL) speedboat ferry system exemplifies this problem perfectly. While ostensibly providing improved inter-island accessibility through free travel for persons with disabilities, the system’s implementation reveals critical oversights. The inability to pre-book accessible seating through the online system creates a situation where a person with disabilities might arrive at the ferry terminal only to find no suitable seating available, despite their legal right to travel. This disconnect between policy intention and practical implementation creates additional barriers rather than removing them, a pattern repeated across our transport infrastructure.
The justice system’s shortcomings in addressing disability rights reveal perhaps the most concerning aspects of our implementation failures. The absence of accessible reporting mechanisms and communication support services effectively denies large segments of our disability community access to justice. When a deaf person cannot access police services or court proceedings due to the absence of sign language interpretation, we’re not merely failing to provide accommodation – we’re actively denying fundamental rights. This becomes particularly critical in cases involving abuse or exploitation, where communication barriers can prevent victims from reporting violations or participating effectively in legal proceedings. The system’s failure to provide these basic accessibility measures effectively places persons with disabilities outside the protection of our legal framework.
Looking beyond our shores provides valuable insights into how effective implementation can transform disability rights from abstract principles into lived reality. The Nordic model of disability inclusion demonstrates how comprehensive social support systems, backed by robust implementation mechanisms and adequate funding, can enable full participation of persons with disabilities in society. Their approach integrates accessibility requirements into all aspects of urban planning and public service delivery, creating an environment where inclusion is the norm rather than the exception. The Australian National Disability Insurance Scheme offers valuable lessons in delivering individualized support systematically, while Canada’s Accessibility Act provides a model for implementing progressive accessibility requirements with specific timelines and enforcement provisions.
Despite these systemic failures, recent developments in the Maldives offer glimmers of hope, though they simultaneously highlight the limitations of our current approach. The inclusion of disability considerations in the National Strategic Action Plan represents a growing recognition at the policy level of the need for systematic approaches to inclusion. Some state institutions have begun implementing accessibility measures, demonstrating that change is possible when political will aligns with practical action. However, these positive developments often emerge from persistent advocacy rather than systematic implementation of existing legislation, creating an unsustainable model where progress depends on continuous pressure rather than functioning systems.
The civil society sector, particularly Organizations of Persons with Disabilities (OPDs), has emerged as a crucial force for accountability and change in this landscape. The achievements of organizations like the Blind and Visually Impaired Society of Maldives (BVISM) in securing reforms such as tactile ballot stencils for independent voting demonstrate the potential for targeted interventions when backed by strong advocacy. Similarly, the Maldives Association of Persons with Disabilities (MAPD) has made significant strides in improving transportation accessibility through practical initiatives like adapted vehicles. Yet these successes, while important, also reveal the limitations of our current approach – they represent islands of progress in a sea of systemic failure, dependent on the tireless efforts of advocates rather than functioning institutional mechanisms.
The current state of disability rights implementation in the Maldives demands a fundamental reconceptualization of how we approach inclusion. The thematic focus of the 2024 International Day of Persons with Disabilities (IDPD), “Amplifying the leadership of persons with disabilities for an inclusive and sustainable future,” provides a timely framework for this transformation. The emphasis on leadership by persons with disabilities challenges our current model, where persons with disabilities are often treated as passive recipients of services rather than active agents of change. This shift in perspective requires not just rhetorical commitment but practical changes in how we design and implement inclusion initiatives.
The path forward requires addressing multiple interconnected challenges simultaneously. First and foremost, we must strengthen our enforcement mechanisms to give real teeth to existing legislation. The current structure of the Disability Council, positioned under the Ministry of Social and Family Development, compromises its ability to act as an independent monitoring body. This arrangement creates inherent conflicts of interest and limits the Council’s ability to hold government institutions accountable. Real reform requires establishing an independent oversight mechanism with clear authority to investigate violations and enforce compliance through meaningful penalties.
Equally crucial is the development of comprehensive implementation protocols that bridge the gap between legislative requirements and practical application. The success of isolated initiatives like the voting accessibility reforms demonstrates how detailed implementation protocols can translate rights into reality. However, this approach needs to be systematized across all sectors, with clear technical standards, implementation timelines, and accountability measures. This requires not just technical expertise but sustained engagement with the disability community to ensure solutions address real rather than perceived needs.
The urban-rural divide in service provision represents another critical challenge that demands immediate attention. The concentration of services in Male’ creates a two-tier system where access to essential support depends largely on geographic location. This systematic discrimination against persons with disabilities in the atolls requires a fundamental rethinking of our service delivery model. We need a decentralized approach that ensures equitable access to support services, therapeutic interventions, and educational opportunities across the country. This isn’t merely about replicating Male’-based services in the atolls but developing context-appropriate solutions that work within the constraints and opportunities of different island communities.
The current fragmentation in data collection and monitoring systems severely hampers our ability to implement evidence-based reforms. Without standardized data collection mechanisms across government agencies, we cannot effectively track service provision, identify gaps, or measure outcomes for persons with disabilities. This isn’t merely a technical issue – it reflects a deeper failure to prioritize disability inclusion in our institutional frameworks. The success of the Census 2022 in collecting disability-related data demonstrates our capacity to gather comprehensive information when properly prioritized. However, we need to move beyond periodic data collection to establish integrated systems that provide real-time insights into the effectiveness of our inclusion efforts.
Our disability assessment and support systems require fundamental restructuring to reflect the diverse needs within our disability community. The current one-size-fits-all approach to disability allowances and support services fails to account for the varying needs of different disability groups and the intersecting challenges faced by many individuals. A person with multiple disabilities living in a remote island faces fundamentally different challenges from someone with a single disability living in Male’, yet our support systems rarely acknowledge these distinctions. We need a more nuanced, needs-based system that considers not just the type and severity of disability but also environmental factors, support needs, and individual circumstances.
The implementation failures across sectors create compounding barriers that significantly impact daily life for persons with disabilities. Consider how the lack of accessible transportation intersects with healthcare access – even when medical services are theoretically available, physical barriers to reaching healthcare facilities can make them effectively inaccessible. Similarly, the absence of sign language interpretation in educational settings doesn’t just affect academic learning; it impacts social development, future employment prospects, and overall life opportunities. These intersecting barriers create cycles of exclusion that become increasingly difficult to break without systematic intervention.
The private sector’s role in disability inclusion requires particular attention. While current regulations mandate certain accommodations and employment opportunities, the lack of enforcement mechanisms and positive incentives has resulted in minimal compliance. We need a dual approach that combines stronger enforcement of existing requirements with incentives for businesses that demonstrate genuine commitment to inclusion. This could include tax benefits for companies that exceed minimum accessibility requirements or create innovative solutions for disability inclusion.
The international development community’s role in supporting disability inclusion in the Maldives presents both opportunities and challenges. While international organizations provide valuable technical expertise and funding, their project-based approach often results in unsustainable initiatives that fade once external support ends. We need to move toward more sustainable models of international cooperation that focus on building local capacity and strengthening domestic institutions rather than implementing isolated projects.
The way forward requires a fundamental shift in how we conceptualize and implement disability inclusion. Instead of viewing accessibility and inclusion as additional considerations to be addressed after the fact, they must be integrated into the core of our planning and implementation processes. This means reconsidering how we design public spaces, deliver services, and structure our institutions. It requires moving beyond technical compliance to create genuinely inclusive environments that enable full participation by persons with disabilities in all aspects of society.
The transformation we need demands concrete action across multiple fronts, beginning with our legislative framework. While the Disability Act provides a foundation, we need subsidiary legislation that details specific implementation requirements, enforcement mechanisms, and accountability measures. This includes developing comprehensive accessibility codes that cover both physical and digital environments, establishing clear timelines for compliance, and creating effective mechanisms for monitoring and enforcement. The success of such reforms depends on meaningful consultation with persons with disabilities throughout the legislative process, ensuring that new requirements address real rather than perceived needs.
The education system requires particularly urgent attention, as current failures in inclusive education perpetuate cycles of disadvantage that affect entire lifetimes. We need to move beyond the current model of separate special education units toward truly inclusive classrooms supported by adequate resources and trained staff. This requires significant investment in teacher training, assistive technologies, and support services. More importantly, it demands a cultural shift within our education system, recognizing that inclusion benefits all students, not just those with disabilities. The experiences of countries like Finland demonstrate how inclusive education can raise educational outcomes for the entire student population while ensuring that no child is left behind due to disability.
Healthcare reform must address both physical accessibility and the deeper systemic barriers that prevent persons with disabilities from receiving adequate care. This includes developing disability-specific health protocols, ensuring all healthcare facilities have appropriate communication support services, and creating mechanisms for regular health monitoring of persons with disabilities. The current practice of centralizing specialized services in Male’ must be replaced with a hub-and-spoke model that makes essential healthcare services available throughout the country. This requires not just physical infrastructure but investment in telehealth services and mobile healthcare units that can reach persons with disabilities in remote communities.
Employment represents another critical area requiring systematic reform. The current approach of establishing quotas and basic accommodation requirements has proven insufficient. We need comprehensive employment support systems that include job coaching, workplace adaptation services, and ongoing support for both employees with disabilities and their employers. This should be coupled with stronger enforcement of non-discrimination provisions and positive incentives for employers who create truly inclusive workplaces. The success stories from countries like Germany show how well-designed employment support systems can lead to sustainable job placements and career advancement for persons with disabilities.
The role of technology in advancing disability inclusion deserves special attention. While digital solutions offer enormous potential for improving accessibility and service delivery, we must ensure that technological advancement doesn’t create new forms of exclusion. This requires developing clear digital accessibility standards, ensuring all government online services are fully accessible, and providing support for persons with disabilities to access and use digital technologies effectively. The potential of artificial intelligence and assistive technologies to enhance independence and participation can only be realized if we ensure equitable access to these tools.
Most critically, we must address the current fragmentation in service delivery and support systems. The lack of coordination between different government agencies, healthcare providers, educational institutions, and support services creates unnecessary barriers for persons with disabilities trying to access essential services. We need to establish integrated service delivery mechanisms that provide seamless support across different sectors. This could include creating one-stop service centers that coordinate various support services, developing shared data systems that reduce redundant documentation requirements, and establishing clear referral pathways between different service providers.
As we reflect on these systemic challenges and necessary reforms, the theme of the 2024 International Day of Persons with Disabilities (IDPD) – “Amplifying the leadership of persons with disabilities for an inclusive and sustainable future” – takes on profound significance. This theme isn’t merely aspirational; it points to the fundamental transformation needed in how we approach disability inclusion. The persistent implementation gaps in our current system stem partly from the limited role persons with disabilities play in designing, implementing, and monitoring inclusion initiatives. Their expertise, derived from lived experience, represents an invaluable resource that our current institutional frameworks largely fail to utilize.
The path forward requires not just acknowledging but actively cultivating leadership by persons with disabilities across all sectors. This means creating formal roles for disability leaders in policy-making bodies, ensuring their representation on institutional boards and committees, and supporting the development of new leadership through targeted capacity-building programs. More fundamentally, it requires challenging deeply ingrained attitudes that view persons with disabilities as passive recipients of services rather than active agents of change. The transformation we need extends beyond individual reforms to encompass a fundamental re-imagining of how our society approaches disability inclusion. This means moving from a compliance-based model, where institutions do the minimum required by law, to a rights-based approach that proactively seeks to create truly inclusive environments. It requires recognizing that disability inclusion isn’t a specialized concern but a fundamental aspect of social justice that affects our entire society’s development and well-being.
As we look toward the future, the challenge before us is clear. We must move beyond the current pattern of partial reforms and unfulfilled commitments to create systematic change that transforms how our society approaches disability inclusion. This transformation depends critically on amplifying the voices and leadership of persons with disabilities themselves, ensuring they play central roles in shaping the policies and practices that affect their lives.
The cost of inaction – in terms of wasted human potential, social exclusion, and perpetuated inequality – far outweighs the investments needed to create genuine inclusion. Every day we delay implementing comprehensive reforms represents another day of denied opportunities and rights for persons with disabilities in our community. The time for incremental changes has passed. We need bold, systematic reform that addresses both immediate barriers and underlying structural inequities.
The vision of disability leadership emphasized in this year’s IDPD theme offers a crucial pathway forward. By placing persons with disabilities at the center of decision-making processes and supporting their leadership development, we can ensure that future reforms actually address the real needs of our disability community. This isn’t just about fulfilling legal obligations or meeting international commitments – it’s about building a more equitable and inclusive society that benefits all its members. As we commemorate this year’s IDPD, let us commit to moving beyond rhetoric to concrete action. The challenges before us are significant but not insurmountable. With sustained commitment, adequate resources, and most importantly, the leadership of persons with disabilities themselves, we can create the inclusive and accessible Maldives that our legislation promises and our people deserve. The time for action is now.
References
Banks, L. M., Hameed, S., Usman, S. K., Davey, C., & Kuper, H. (2024). The impact of the disability allowance on financial well-being in the Maldives: Quasi-experimental study. European Journal of Development Research, 36(2), 411–427. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41287-023-00607-8
Banks, L. M., O’Fallon, T., Hameed, S., Usman, S. K., Polack, S., Kuper, H., & Lippi Bruni, M. (2022). Disability and the achievement of Universal Health Coverage in the Maldives. PloS One, 17(12), e0278292. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278292
Human Rights Commission of Maldives. (2019). Elderly and disability situation assessment of Addu City 2018. Research and Monitoring Department.
Hummell, E., Borg, S. J., Foster, M., Burns, K., & Harris Rimmer, S. (2024). Agendas of reform: Continuity and change in Australia’s National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). Social Policy and Society : A Journal of the Social Policy Association, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1474746424000101
Ibrahim, A. (2018, May 16). Legislative gaps and challenges in the implementation of the Disability Act in the Maldives. Raajje.mv. https://raajje.mv/32528
Jehn, A., & Zajacova, A. (2019). Disability trends in Canada: 2001–2014 population estimates and correlates. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 110(3), 354–363. https://doi.org/10.17269/s41997-018-0158-y
Kuper, H., Heydt, P., Hameed, S., Smythe, T., & Kujinga, T. (2024). The process of developing and piloting a tool in the Maldives and Zimbabwe for assessing disability inclusion in health systems performance. SSM – Health Systems, 3, 100014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmhs.2024.100014
Laitinen, M. T., Katsui, H., Laitinen, M. T., & Katsui, H. (2024). Disability, happiness and the welfare state: Finland and the Nordic model (1st ed., Vol. 1). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781032685519
Mahamud Tohan, M., Islam, M. A., Rahman, M. A., & Saha, J. (2024). Exploring the factors behind socioeconomic inequalities in Antenatal Care (ANC) utilization across five South Asian nations: A decomposition approach. PloS One, 19(8), e0304648. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304648
Maldives Bureau of Statistics. (2023). Disability in the Maldives: An analysis from Census 2022. Ministry of Housing, Land & Urban Development. https://statisticsmaldives.gov.mv
Maldives: The President resolves to establish guideline for employing people with disabilities. (2023). In MENA Report. Disco Digital Media, Inc.
Moosa, V., Shareefa, M., Adams, D., & Mohamed, A. (2022). Assessing teacher readiness for inclusive education in Maldives: Instrument modification and validation. International Journal of Disability, Development, and Education, 69(6), 1888–1904. https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2020.1837355
Robinson, S., Fisher, K. R., & Edward Elgar Publishing, publisher. (2023). Research handbook on disability policy(S. Robinson & K. R. Fisher, Eds.). Edward Elgar Publishing.
Udhma, F. (2023, January 6). President Ibrahim Mohamed Solih emphasizes the National Disability Registry’s role in promoting disability rights. Raajje.mv. https://raajje.mv/128931
Leave a Reply