What Is 1968 Constitution of the Maldives

Overview

The 1968 Constitution of the Maldives marked a pivotal moment in the nation’s political evolution, transitioning from a centuries-old monarchy to a modern republic. Ratified on November 11, 1968, following a national referendum, it replaced the 1932 Constitution and ended the Maldivian Sultanate that had existed since 1153.

This foundational legal document restructured the government, establishing a presidential system with clearly defined executive, legislative, and judicial branches. The constitution emphasized national sovereignty, individual rights, and the rule of law, setting the stage for future democratic reforms.

• November 11, 1968 is the official adoption date of the constitution, following approval by a national referendum.
• The constitution formally abolished the Sultanate, ending a dynastic system that had governed the Maldives for over 800 years.
• It established the Maldives as a presidential republic, with the President serving as both head of state and head of government.
• The document created a unicameral People’s Majlis as the sole legislative body, elected by the people.
• It included a chapter on fundamental rights, guaranteeing freedoms of speech, religion, and assembly, albeit with limitations during emergencies.

How It Works

The 1968 Constitution defined a centralized system of governance, concentrating significant authority in the presidency while maintaining a framework for representative institutions.

• Term: The President served a five-year term and was directly elected by the People’s Majlis, not by popular vote. This indirect election method limited broad democratic participation.
• The President held executive authority, including control over the military, foreign policy, and appointment of key officials such as judges and ministers.
• The People’s Majlis had legislative powers but could be dissolved by the President, reducing its independence and oversight capacity.
• Judicial independence was nominally guaranteed, but the President appointed judges, raising concerns about judicial impartiality and political influence.
• The constitution allowed for emergency powers, enabling the President to suspend rights and rule by decree during national crises, a provision later criticized for enabling authoritarianism.
• Amendments required a two-thirds majority in the People’s Majlis, making constitutional change difficult without broad consensus, though not impossible.

Comparison at a Glance

Comparing the 1968 Constitution with the current 2008 Constitution highlights key shifts in governance and rights.

While both constitutions established a presidential system, the 2008 version introduced stronger democratic safeguards, term limits, and direct elections. The 1968 framework laid the foundation but lacked mechanisms to prevent executive overreach, a flaw addressed decades later.

Why It Matters

The 1968 Constitution was a landmark in Maldivian history, symbolizing the nation’s shift toward modern governance and self-determination. Though later superseded, its structure influenced subsequent political development and constitutional discourse.

• It ended the Sultanate, marking the final transition from feudal rule to a republican form of government.
• The document laid the groundwork for future democratic reforms, including the eventual adoption of multiparty elections.
• By centralizing power in the presidency, it enabled rapid decision-making but also enabled authoritarian rule under leaders like President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom.
• The inclusion of fundamental rights, though limited, established a legal basis for civil liberties advocacy in later decades.
• Its amendment process demonstrated early challenges in balancing stability with reform in a small island nation.
• The 1968 Constitution remained in effect for 40 years, shaping governance until the democratic reforms of the 2000s led to its replacement.

Ultimately, the 1968 Constitution served as both a milestone and a cautionary tale—ushering in republicanism while highlighting the need for checks and balances in executive power.