I know it’s a common insult to say a group you don’t like is a cult, but bear in mind that I mean this literally. Neoliberal political parties, especially in the Maldives, operate like cults in the precise definition of that word, and less actual political organisations. Also, this applies to all political parties here. No excpetions.
What exactly is a “cult”? While its everyday use has made it a loaded term, the concept of cult has strong sociological parameters for ontology (ވުޖޫދަ؛ ޠަބީޢަތް — what a thing is) and epistemology (ވުޖޫދަ އިނގިގަންނާނެ ގޮތް — how to measure, investigate, understand, and know a thing). That means:
- The concept’s definition isn’t widely contested except for a very few differences
- The definitions and conditions are clear and simple
- There is a solid criteria with which we can observe, measure, investigate, and act on a thing
The sociological definition of a “cult”
The criteria I use is the one by Margaret Singer. The factors of a cult, therefore, are as stated by Singer in her book “Cults in Our Midst”:
- “The origin of the group and role of the leaders”
- Usually elevated to a grand status; almost flawless
- Unquestionable authority
- Said to have “special” knowledge, vision, etc.
- “The power structure, or relationship between the leaders and the followers”
- Strict heirarchy; centered around the leaders at a personal level
- Leaders have final authority over decisions; no higher means of accountability
- Takes control over followers’ lives
- Double-standard ethics: honest and open with members, deceitful and manipulative with non-members
- The ends justify the means; it’s okay to do deeply immoral things for a “greater good”
- Expects members to devote time, energy, money, and other resources for the group
- “The use of a coordinated program of persuasion (which is called thought reform, or, more commonly, brainwashing)”
- Black-and-white view of the world
- Strict binary between the in-group and out-group
- A crisis-solution dichotomy: ‘here is a crisis, and we are the solution’
- “Re-education”, dictating how to think and what to think
Furthermore, there’s also Steven Hassan’s BITE model for identifying cults (see the above figure). It is important to bear in mind that not every cult shares all traits uniformly, but these three factors can effectively identify cult structures. Now, with that out of the way, we can observe the cult-like nature of our political parties.
Parties or cults? You decide
Let’s use Dr. Steven Hassan’s BITE model as a first reference point
| Factor | Ones applicable to Maldivian political parties |
|---|---|
| Behavioral control | Dictating members’ lifestyles and associations; financial exploitation and dependence (especially on party payroll); major time spent with group indoctrination and self-indoctrination; permission required for most major personal political decisions; rewards/punishments to modify behaviour; encouraging group-think; rigid political rules and regulations; threats of harm and corporal punishment (via gang violence); separation of families (animosity towards non-members = antagonism w family members outside of the group) |
| Information control | Withholding and distorting political information; systematically lying to party members; minimisation and discouragement of access to non-party information sources (including ex-members); information about the internal workings of the group is limited; spying on other members and non-members is encouraged; information is only accepted when disseminated through party media |
| Thought control | Party or faction’s doctrine to be internalised as truth; use of loaded language; encouraging only “positive” thoughts sanctioned by the party leadership; history is distorted; the use of ‘thought-stopping clichés’ (e.g., denial, rationalisation, etc.); rejection of critical thinking, rational analysis, etc.; punishing critical questions about leadership, doctrine, or policy; alternatives are illegitimate, evil, or not useful |
| Emotional control | Emotion-suppressing techniques are encouraged to suppress doubt, anger, etc.; problems are always the members’ (or general voters’) fault, never the party or their faction leaders; instill fear of the “other” (non-members, outgroups, faction rivals, etc.); extreme emotional highs and lows — one moment you’re the backbone of the party, the next moment ‘people like you are the reason this party is failing’; phobia indoctrination — no meaningful political participation outside the party, terrible social consequences for leaving, shunning those who leave, threats of harm to vocal ex-members |
Can you name a single party in this country that doesn’t revolve around a specific man (or men) and their status as “the only person that can save this country” (or something along those lines)? No, right? With MDP, you have the Anni faction, Fayyaz faction, Ibu faction, etc.; with PNC, everything’s centered around Muizzu; with PNF, it’s Yameen; with MDA, it’s Sun Siyam; with JP, it’s Qasim… can anyone even think of these parties functioning without these people?
The ideal objective of a political party is to unite like-minded individuals around a properly consensus-based structure (not a performative one). The party’s purpose is to pursue an established and agreed-upon macropolitical objective, not a “zero paper”. Even at the start of our multi-party system, these parties were like this. DRP is obviously centered around Maumoon, and MDP was heavily centered around Anni since 2006, as this one old hand testifies. Apart from helping the British conservatives push their neoliberal agenda, the party had no substance.
Recovering from party politics
I mean, think about it. If you go against PNC or start being actively critical about it, you get kicked out of your government position, you lose your income sources, and you’d be bombarded by an active hate-campaign towards you. The same with MDP. Remember what happened when that guy Aaidh or something decided to quit Adhadhu for whatever reason? Remember how violently the MDP-loyal anonymous accounts and open supporters came down on him?
So, real threats and violent consequences await those who would actively leave the party and especially be vocal about it. They will face harassment, smear campaigns, slander, and even threats of harm. It’s the same if you’re ever really and openly critical of the leadership within the parties too, or openly reject their manifesto or policy plans. Party members are in hotel california: “you can check out any time you like; but you can never leave”.
I think we seriously need to start thinking about rehabilitating this society for recovery from exposure to party-politics violence. There surely has to be more ways to feel societally connected and politically active than to join a literal cult masquerading as a political party.
