Gov’t decides to lecture citizens on courtesy while its own house burns down

Few administrations have demonstrated such an unmatched appetite for rolling out grand undertakings, completely untethered from whether these concepts ever bear fruit. The government's ever-expanding catalog of inventively titled ventures already spans everything from offering psychological healing through verses of poetry to dangling the fantasy of turning every single Maldivian citizen into a resort shareholder.

Now, yet another nationwide campaign joins the parade.

President Dr. Mohamed Muizzu has stepped forward to unveil a state-sponsored scheme designed to cultivate and instill the principles of reciprocal regard across Maldivian communities.

Addressing the media during a presser at the President’s Office, the head of state explained that a formal submission for this undertaking had been tabled before the ministers and duly secured their endorsement. In the administration's telling, authorities are treating the endeavor with profound earnestness, having already locked in elaborate execution blueprints, financial allocations, and strict operational schedules.

However, before state apparatuses assume the patronizing role of lecturing an entire populace on the merits of decency, elementary common sense suggests the opening seminars belong squarely inside their own political household.

The justification for sweeping their own doorstep first is glaringly obvious to anyone following recent partisan rallies arranged by the ruling camp. These gatherings routinely devolve into venomous spectacles defined by targeted assaults on rivals, cruel mockery, unfounded accusations, public humiliation, and outright character destruction. On multiple occasions, the contempt spewing from the stage sinks to depths so foul that households cannot comfortably listen to the broadcasts together.

Against such a grotesque backdrop, one is forced to question whether the administration genuinely believes it can school the wider public in the fine art of civil coexistence.

Promoting elevated standards of dialogue through a broad public campaign is not flawed in concept. Helping political and civic conversation in the Maldives evolve into a far more constructive, wholesome exchange would undoubtedly serve the republic well.

However, if the regime harbors any genuine intent to overhaul this toxic atmosphere, the head of state needs to demonstrate basic accountability by publicly rebuking the disgraceful behavior flourishing right beneath his own banner.

Consequently, this moral crusade ought to stage its pilot run strictly within the ranks of the ruling apparatus.

The pioneer training modules need to be mandated for ruling party executives, grassroots operatives, state-appointed political officials, and the regular fixtures at the rally microphones.

Explicit boundaries for civil discourse must be drawn and enforced. Humiliating adversaries in public forums and launching personal mudslinging operations, whoever the victim happens to be, must face unequivocal denunciation.

Political speakers must be drilled on the necessity of fact-checking their claims before addressing crowds. Crucially, internal party culture must absorb the lesson that ideological disagreement never offers a license to strip another human being of their personal honor.

Only when those foundational reforms take root behind closed political doors should the state even consider exporting its sermons to the broader islands of the Maldives.