The dissolution of atoll councils and the government’s decision to establish Local Government Authority offices in each atoll mark one of the most significant changes to local governance in the Maldives since the Decentralisation Act was introduced. What was once an elected layer of regional representation is now being replaced by administrative offices operating under a national authority.
The change has been presented as part of a wider restructuring of local governance. However, taken together with the reduction in the number of councillors in city and island councils, the delayed transfer of Hulhumale’ jurisdiction to Male’ City Council, and the continued role of state-owned entities in municipal functions, it raises a larger question: is decentralisation in the Maldives being quietly downgraded?
The promise of decentralisation was rooted in the democratic changes that followed the 2008 Constitution. For decades, governance in the Maldives had been highly centralised, with decision-making concentrated in Male’ and local administration carried out through officials appointed by the central government. The Decentralisation Act was intended to change that structure by giving communities elected councils with legal authority over local affairs, development priorities, services, and public accountability.
In principle, the creation of island councils, atoll councils and city councils was meant to bring government closer to the people. Instead of waiting for decisions to be made in Male’, communities were supposed to have elected representatives who understood local needs and could shape development from within. Decentralisation was not simply an administrative reform. It was a democratic promise that citizens across the country would have a stronger voice in how their islands, atolls, and cities were governed.
Recent changes suggest that this promise is being weakened. With atoll councils dissolved after the end of their terms, the regional tier of elected local government has effectively been removed. The new LGA atoll offices may provide administrative continuity, but they are not elected councils. They do not carry the same democratic mandate, and they are not directly answerable to voters in the way atoll councillors were.
This distinction matters. A local office of a national authority is not the same as a local government. An elected council can be challenged by residents, held responsible at the ballot box, and expected to represent local priorities. An administrative office, even if it performs useful functions, ultimately answers upward through the state bureaucracy. That shift appears to move the Maldives away from decentralisation and towards a more centralised model of supervision.
The reduction in the number of councillors adds to these concerns. Smaller island councils, in particular, may now have fewer elected representatives to handle the same range of responsibilities. For islands with limited administrative capacity, this could weaken oversight, make it harder to maintain quorum, and reduce the number of people available to respond to community concerns. The government may argue that reducing council sizes is necessary to manage costs, but the democratic cost is harder to dismiss.
Representation in small island communities is not an abstract matter. Councillors are often the first point of contact for residents facing problems with services, land, waste management, housing, public spaces, and development projects. Fewer councillors can mean fewer voices within councils, weaker scrutiny of decisions, and less space for public concerns to be reflected in local administration.
The situation in Male’ presents another example of the gap between the legal promise of decentralisation and its practical implementation. Male’ City Mayor Adam Azim recently appealed to President Dr Mohamed Muizzu to transfer jurisdiction of the entire city, including Hulhumale’, to Male’ City Council. His appeal was based on a long-standing legal position that municipal services in Male’, Hulhumale’ and Vilimale’ should fall under the elected city council.
That transfer remains incomplete despite an agreement signed in January 2024 between Housing Development Corporation, Male’ City Council and the Finance Ministry. The memorandum was meant to move municipal services in Hulhumale’ from HDC to the city council, but more than two years later, the elected council still does not exercise full practical authority over one of the most important urban areas in the country.
Hulhumale’ is not a minor administrative question. It is one of the Maldives’ fastest-growing population centres and a major site of housing, land allocation, public infrastructure, and commercial development. If an elected city council is legally responsible for municipal services but a state-owned company continues to exercise practical control, then the principle of local democracy is left unresolved.
HDC’s continued role in Hulhumale’ raises democratic concerns because it operates differently from an elected council. A council is directly accountable to residents through elections. Its decisions are subject to political scrutiny, public criticism, and local pressure. A state-owned company, by contrast, is governed through a corporate structure and is ultimately tied to central government control. Even where it performs public functions, its accountability is not the same as that of an elected municipal authority.
This creates a troubling imbalance. Residents of Hulhumale’ depend on decisions about land, planning, services, roads, housing, public spaces and development, but the body exercising much of that influence is not elected by them as a local government. In effect, municipal power remains with a state-owned entity while the elected city council is left fighting for the authority already expected under the law.
The broader pattern is difficult to ignore. Atoll councils have been dissolved. Council sizes have been reduced. Local planning powers have been made more dependent on national frameworks. LGA offices are being set up in atolls under a central authority. Hulhumale’ remains under the practical influence of HDC despite repeated commitments to transfer municipal functions to Male’ City Council.
Each of these developments can be explained individually as administrative reform, cost-cutting, legal adjustment, or institutional restructuring. Taken together, however, they suggest a movement away from elected local authority and towards centralised control. The language of decentralisation remains, but the practical power of councils appears to be shrinking.
This has consequences beyond institutional design. Local governance is where democracy becomes visible in everyday life. It affects how roads are maintained, how waste is collected, how land is used, how public spaces are managed, how housing pressures are addressed, and how development priorities are set. When local councils are weakened, citizens lose one of the most direct channels through which they can influence decisions affecting their daily lives.
The weakening of local councils also reduces checks and balances. In a country where political and economic power is already heavily concentrated in Male’, decentralisation was meant to distribute authority more fairly. It gave islands and cities a formal role in shaping their futures. If that role is narrowed, communities become more dependent on ministries, national authorities, and state-owned companies whose priorities may not always reflect local needs.
Meaningful decentralisation would require more than elected councils existing on paper. It would require legal clarity over the powers of councils, especially in areas such as land use, municipal services, planning, and public infrastructure. It would require fiscal autonomy so councils are not entirely dependent on central government decisions. It would require protection from arbitrary interference, and a clear separation between the role of elected councils and the role of state-owned companies.
The Maldives does not need local councils that merely implement instructions from the centre. It needs local institutions with the authority, resources, and democratic legitimacy to make decisions for the communities they represent. Without that, decentralisation becomes a formality rather than a functioning system of government.
The recent restructuring may preserve local administration, but administration alone is not democracy. An LGA office in an atoll may process files, supervise procedures, and maintain state presence. But it cannot replace the democratic value of elected representatives chosen by the people of that atoll. The real question for the Maldives is not whether there will be offices in the islands and atolls. It is whether those communities will still have genuine local power.
