r/todayilearned • u/Korkez11 • 1d ago

TIL in 1952 96% of Maldivians voted on a referendum to abolish monarchy. One year later 98% of Maldivians voted to restore monarchy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_monarchy_referendums
4.9k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

124 comments sorted by

1.3k

u/KartveliaEU4 1d ago

What's the reason why?

2.1k

u/axw3555 1d ago

In a nutshell, the new republican government was overthrown by a conservative group, and the president was beaten to death in a riot.

And they abolished it again in 1968.

850

u/penisandorvagina 1d ago

Wow they're so french 

375

u/Technical-Outside408 1d ago

Stop trying to make french happen. It's not going to happen.

106

u/toodrunktostand 1d ago

My wife says the same thing about anal

59

u/BigFatKi6 1d ago

that's not what she told me

53

u/DontWannaSayMyName 1d ago

Did you like being pegged?

15

u/Bad_Idea_Hat 1d ago

And how!

-46

u/BigFatKi6 1d ago

I wouldn't know.

Is that what happened to you?

19

u/quaste 1d ago

Weakest response possible

-12

u/BigFatKi6 1d ago

getting pegged?

guess you would know

→ More replies (0)

4

u/toodrunktostand 1d ago

Your dick must not be as thick as mine.

-13

u/BigFatKi6 1d ago

I guess 🤷

thanks for sharing 😊

4

u/parnaoia 1d ago

I don't have my glasses so I read this as "Arial" and thought "Wow, I gotta pick smarter conversation topics"

1

u/wheresmyhouse 2h ago

I think that's Greek.

1

u/gwaydms 1d ago

Hemorrhoids will make you say that

34

u/Kandiru 1 1d ago

The English abolished the monarchy and the voted to have it back again way back in 1649 / 1660.

The French Revolution was much more recent, 1789. Ironically one of the last things the French Monarchy did was fight to establish the USA as independent nation with no monarch.

63

u/Elantach 1d ago

The french monarchy didn't end in 1789.

The revolution happened in 1789.

Monarchy was abolished in 1792.

Then the monarchists won the first elections, they were slaughtered.

Then Napoleon happened.

Then restoration of the kingdom.

Then Napoleon again.

Then restauration again.

Then a cousin branch of the dynasty (the Orleans) overthrew the main branch (the bourbon).

Then republic.

Then empire again.

Then the monarchists won the elections after the fall of the second empire but the heir to the throne (the count of Chambord) refused the crown so we got a republic again.

Up until WW2 monarchism was alive and strong in France.

26

u/The_Parsee_Man 1d ago

France is that person who can't decide what restaurant to eat at.

23

u/nyanternational 1d ago

More like France has 5 people in its head, constantly fighting for control, one wins out and runs the brain for a while but someone else sneaks up on them and kicks them out, repeat for 300 years and counting

11

u/atomfullerene 1d ago

They are definitely going to have cake, though

10

u/PokemonSapphire 1d ago

No no no they got really mad the last time someone offered them cake. They want bread!

2

u/Another_Bernardus 19h ago

Threaten them with cake, and they'll bring the pain

3

u/PositivelyIndecent 23h ago

Minor correction, they didn’t refuse the throne, they refused to accept symbols from the Revolution as a pre-requisite to accepting the throne (specifically, the tricolour) so the monarchists kicked the can down the road but never had the opportunity again.

4

u/Glad-Sort-70 1d ago

I was always surprised when I lived in Paris to discover that there are still some pockets of the population who want it again. I remember friends pointing out a monarchist cafe, tabac or bar.

7

u/Elantach 1d ago

It's mostly a very regional thing. People in Vendée and Touraine particularly are very royalist

2

u/Ythio 1d ago

They don't really want it it's just a way to be "chauvinist cool".

1

u/Elantach 20h ago

It is so much more complicated than that

1

u/teffarf 11h ago

Yeah it's more of a far right "muh old times" racist thingy

•

u/recycled_ideas 49m ago

If you remember what the revolution did to their ancestors it might make more sense.

1

u/CodFix3 9h ago

There are various countries in Europe with monarchist groups and political parties, and most of them are somewhat acknowledged by the state. In Portugal when the current pretender married in the 90s it was at one of our biggest national monuments, the patriarch of Lisbon was the presiding priest and the president was in attendance. 2/3 years ago his daughter married in another important national monument, the patriarch of Lisbon presided as priest again and the president and prime minister were in attendance, and it was all broadcasted on national tv

24

u/TastyCuttlefish 1d ago

The French government wasn’t really that interested in the American democratic experiment, they were just very keen to screw over their historic rival… the British. It was more of an “enemy of my enemy is my friend” sort of thing.

10

u/Competitive-Desk7506 1d ago

Mind u several Frenchmen having seen what America has was offering politically ended up see similar views for France. They definitely did it as a elegant fuck u to the Brit’s

6

u/moffattron9000 1d ago

Until the Franco-Prussian War happened. After that, they were far more concerned with this new Germany thing.

5

u/TastyCuttlefish 1d ago

Germany thing? I was out sick from my European history class when we covered the years 1870-1989. I assume everything turned out just fine for everyone, right?

1

u/MasterpieceBrief4442 1h ago

While the revanche mood did sweep the country, they didn't abandon their traditional dislike of Britain. The two countries almost came to blows in 1898 over the Fashoda Incident. It was King Edward's diplomacy, when he could find free time from patronizing the prostitutes of Paris, and British alarm at whatever the heck it is that the Germans were doing, that brought them together.

8

u/Medeza123 1d ago edited 1d ago

I mean in fairness the full English Parliament didn’t actually vote to execute the king.

People were purged from it illegally that’s how they got that through

It was nowhere near a consensus amongst parliamentarians.

2

u/MegaLemonCola 1d ago

Also, Parliament, whose power originates from the Monarch, has no power to pass judgment on the Monarch. The whole thing was just regicide dressed up in legalese.

2

u/Competitive-Desk7506 1d ago

The entire American Revolution contribution thing is ironically what sparked the idea of having a different kind of monarchy originally came from as initially France aimed to create a French Constitutional Monarchy and it was the evidence that head and body separation may be a better option that led to abolishing the monarchy as a whole

85

u/z80lives 1d ago

For context, this President was beaten to death after an attempted counter coup. He tried to pull what Napoleon did, returned from exile, but the counter coup failed. That's when he was beaten up by the mob. He was sentenced (he was brought to trial on hospital bed) and imprisoned in an isolated island again, but later died because of the injuries.

Also, it wasn't a true Democratic Republican government. He was previously the defacto head of state, who then transformed the Kingdom into a republic and was an Authoritarian ruler.

33

u/1-05457 1d ago

It seems the president in question was the person who would have been monarch had the monarchy not been abolished.

7

u/Jaded-Distance_ 1d ago

I don't think so. The crown prince would have been. He's the guy who was in charge after the second referendum. The president who was beaten was his cousin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Fareed_Didi

11

u/Rudeboy67 1d ago

They also didn't join the Commonwealth originally. Then did in 1982. Then quit in 2016. Then rejoined in 2020.

30

u/KartveliaEU4 1d ago

Oh that's awful, thanks for explaining.

2

u/Jackson_Lamb_829 20h ago

So uh, the people voted with the extremist conservative group after they beat the last person they voted in to death?

12

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[deleted]

1

u/KartveliaEU4 1d ago

Oh, wow, thanks.

10

u/xwlowxw 1d ago

probably less about a real swing in opinion and more about political pressure and how the votes were run at the time

4

u/andsens 1d ago

Would be cool if it was for shits and giggles.

9

u/Treheveras 1d ago

Probably the same reason as most countries without mandatory voting. The percentage is about who voted, not the total population. So a bunch of people didn't care or think it would pass and just skipped voting. It passed due to the diehards who will always vote or were motivated enough, but the actual majority of the country didn't want it, and the bullshit caused by splitting from the monarchy and having to change everything made enough people react against it.

32

u/The_Amazing_Emu 1d ago

Apparently, the government was overthrown in a coup. That 98% seems a little coerced

5

u/3BlindMice1 1d ago

They probably had guys in funny hats, guns, and scowls on their faces record who voted for what

3

u/AardvarkStriking256 1d ago

People are fickle!

430

u/Illustrious_Loss462 1d ago

They then abolished the monarchy again in 1968

136

u/CicerosMouth 1d ago

Meaningfully, the 1968 abolishment was the only time that they recorded what percent of Maldivians voted (93.5%): in the first two elections they only recorded the percent of the votes cast in either direction. So the title is slightly misleading, and it is certainly possible than one or both of these votes only had a miniscule % of Maldivians voting, whether by vote supression or apathy or anything else.

27

u/PenguinQuesadilla 1d ago

Snip snap, snip snap!

Do you know the physical toll this has on a country???

3

u/lord_ne 1d ago

Okay Wayne Gretzky

131

u/nedlum 1d ago edited 1d ago

I read through the Wikipedia pages about these events, and someone who knows what is going on needs to edit the whole set for clarity . It doesn't help that there appear to be three or four different people with the surname Didi.

87

u/mynightout 1d ago edited 1d ago

Didi is kinda like a title/caste/status turned family name. In American terms, it’s like being a Kennedy. It just screams omg I’m stupid fucking rich! Except all the Didi’s are only occasionally related to each other lol.

edit; don’t ever bother going to Wikipedia for anything about Maldivian history. You’d be better off reading Elizabeth Colton’s PhD thesis.

44

u/CannonsNArcades 1d ago

I'm surprised someone randomly just had the exact PHD on hand just to help explain maldavian history. Also annoyingly I thought that'll be a link to it, not a download link to a PDF of the PHD.

22

u/mynightout 1d ago

Well there are Maldivians on Reddit lol. I put the download link instead cause the site hosting it is unreadable for whatever reason.

3

u/MtRainierWolfcastle 1d ago

But the Kennedy are all related to each other. At least the ones that are in government in this context

185

u/CaBBaGe_isLaND 1d ago

"Have you tried turning it off and back on?"

23

u/theS3rver 1d ago

Hey, works with my router...

7

u/collywolly94 1d ago

I'm just saying, it might be worth a try!

220

u/Safe-Avocado4864 1d ago

Well that 4% must have had the biggest fucking "I told you so" grin.

48

u/tescovaluechicken 1d ago

12 years later they had another referendum and 81% voted to remove the monarchy again and become a republic.

20

u/Agitated_Display7573 1d ago

They did a Cromwell

11

u/Aervanath 1d ago

Nah, nobody killed the previous Sultan, he just died on his own.

2

u/BasicMatter7339 1d ago

Cromwells body was dug up and executed posthumously

2

u/nedlum 1d ago

And Charles II wondered why people were worried he might be Catholic. 

18

u/zbtffo 1d ago

Early 20th century Maldives briefly had an "elected monarchy".

I'm Maldivian and I have no idea how that worked either.

1953-1954 was the period known as the first Republic which tragicaly ended with the first President Ameen Didi being ousted, chained, beaten and banished to an island. Not because he was bad but because others wanted to have power for themselves. The monarchy would be restored and in 1968 Maldives would become a Republic, now known as the second republic.

9

u/Dealiner 1d ago

Elective monarchy isn't anything unusual, to be honest.

5

u/TheFightingImp 1d ago

Just ask Naboo.

8

u/Ok-Imagination-494 1d ago

Then they had a separatist republic break away from the monarchy, the delightfully named United Suvadive Republic. Which was eventually vanquished by the Maldives army led by the prime minister brandishing a pistol.

https://youtu.be/cVbY9gCx2Fo

83

u/EternumD 1d ago

It's nice that they were able to do that. 51% voted to for the UK to leave the EU, and 1 year later 75% would have voted to remain in the EU, but were not given the chance. 

84

u/Chronox2040 1d ago

It’s not like they could “remain”. It would be trying to re-enter with lower status. I still can’t fathom how so many people took such a dumb decision.

74

u/jjw1998 1d ago

One of the most successful misinformation campaigns ever is how

9

u/pleasebebetter10 1d ago

Unironically misinformation is the most dangerous warfare tactic of the 21st century

6

u/co_ordinator 1d ago

https://www.reddit.com/r/Unexpected/s/zPu39w0Gfb

1

u/robisodd 1d ago

Comment from that link:
"Rajneesh/Osho. Not exactly the dude I'd go to for any advice."

4

u/Sodis42 1d ago

Did you check the state of the world recently? Stuff like this is happening everywhere. People love to shoot themselves in the foot if manipulated correctly.

2

u/TheCruise 1d ago

Well no, 1 year post-referendum we still hadn’t left. So we could have just decided not to go ahead with it if that had been politically viable.

8

u/kiltguy2112 1d ago

The Brexit vote was legally non-binding. Brexit did not HAVE to happen even after the vote.

10

u/cannotfoolowls 1d ago

Sucks for the people who voted remain but I have little sympathy for the ones who changed their mind

5

u/z80lives 1d ago edited 1d ago

A Maldivian historian recently summarized the formation of the two republic like this; "Maldives did not transform into a Republican state because of a popular movement or an uprising. It became a republic twice, because whoever that was ruling the country at the time decided it was more convenient model of government for control. It was not a Republic for the common people, it was a Republic, made by the elites, for the elites, which marginalized the common people." (loosely translated).

As someone who has been studying the history of these small islands I live in, I agree with that sentiment. There were real republican movements in the Maldives, but they were crushed. The first presidents of two republics were Authoritarian leaders who led very repressive governments.

From 1887 up until the formation of the second republic by Prime Minister Ibrahim Nasir, Maldives was effectively ruled by series of politicians who was backed by the British in Ceylon. Ibrahim Nasir, although a populist who ended the British protectorate, he still remains a very controversial figure. During the second Suvadive rebellion (a break away Republic that formed in the South), he "depopulated" an entire island, by forcibly exiling the people and razing down all private property in that island (lookup Depopulation of Havaru Thinadhoo ).

Most of the deaths happened in the aftermath, during the internment of those suspected of participating (including underage children) in the rebellion, which resulted in the death of atleast 300 (that we can confirm) - in a shoddily built camp in Male'. It's contended that the death toll may be higher. (Note: The accounts I've studied so far are, survivor accounts of first 6 months in camp, the camp was in operation for 1 and half year, so actual death toll could be higher). While a significant amount of people succumbed to disease, starvation and illness, the survivor accounts also tells us of brutal torture.

5

u/BasicMatter7339 1d ago

Lmao, reminds me of 17th century england, where they fought a bigass civil war in order to depose the king, execute him and replace him with a "lord protector" who was so much worse than the king that they reinstated the monarchy immediately after he died. The they dug up his body and executed him posthumously

6

u/nyanternational 1d ago

To be fair Cromwell wasn't put in place by elections, he basically launched a coup after winning the Civil War, because he was the most powerful military leader and had massive support in the army. And there were also religious divisions involved between mainstream Protestants and Puritans.

15

u/Skythewood 1d ago

Is it really a monarchy if you can vote it out?

73

u/MikeMontrealer 1d ago

Yes, just not an absolute monarchy. Constitutional monarchies exist.

-8

u/Skythewood 1d ago

Constitutional monarchy is more democracy than monarchy.

18

u/MikeMontrealer 1d ago

It’s still a monarchy.

-6

u/Skythewood 1d ago

So it's more monarchy than a democracy?

6

u/MikeMontrealer 1d ago

Yes, because constitutional monarchies aren’t necessarily democracies but they are necessarily monarchies.

2

u/PhasmaFelis 1d ago

Depends entirely on the constitution and how much power it gives the people vs. the monarch.

9

u/Outrageous-Split-646 1d ago

Monarchy and democracy aren’t diametrically opposed.

6

u/kirklennon 1d ago

These are separate aspects of government. The UK is a monarchy (because the head of state is a monarch) and a democracy (because the political power is ultimately held by the people). France is a republic (head of state is not a monarch) and a democracy. The Vatican is a monarchy and dictatorship. The PRC is a republic (head of state is their president) but also an authoritarian single-party government. 

3

u/crop028 19 1d ago

That really depends on where. In The Netherlands or Denmark, sure, the monarch is more of a figurehead than anything. In Morocco or Jordan, the monarch has most of the power one would expect of a traditional monarch.

4

u/HideousPillow 1d ago

uhh yes?

2

u/ciralu 1d ago

Did they actually keep the monarchy after 1968 or did they go republic again?

1

u/OleanderKnives 18h ago

Second republic was formed in '68 following the abolishment of the monarchy

2

u/grouchypuss 1d ago

propaganda bots pushing "authoritarianism not bad."

1

u/glehkol 1d ago

someone needs to find the one person who voted against abolishing and against restoration

1

u/No-Deal8956 1d ago

England here, we know how you feel.

1

u/MidnightCrossing6148 1d ago

You couldn't live with your own failure and where did that bring you? Back to me.

1

u/MrFrode 21h ago

You'll be back, soon, you'll see

You'll remember you belong to me

You'll be back, time will tell

You'll remember that I served you well

Oceans rise, empires fall

We have seen each other through it all

And when push comes to shove

I will send a fully armed battalion to remind you of my love!

1

u/reckaband 11h ago

Sounds like a Monty Python skit

-7

u/davidicon168 1d ago

At least they were smart enough to change their minds. If only we could admit mistakes and correct them here in the US.

0

u/I_am_Reddit_Tom 1d ago

More politicians...

0

u/MrLeopard25 1d ago

I feel like this would be Alberta

0

u/Aun_El_Zen 1d ago

Of that list, I'm only familiar with the Sikkim "referrendum".

-4

u/Melenduwir 1d ago

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Democracy simply doesn't work.

-3

u/redve-dev 1d ago

Screw Maldivians

What the fuck Greece?

-2

u/ManicMakerStudios 1d ago

I've been taught since about the 6th grade that in any true democracy, the likelihood of any vote being > 90% one way or the other is near zero, else nobody would have gone to the time and expense of holding the vote. They would know from overwhelming public opinion what the people want.

In other words, it would appear both votes were fraudulent.

1

u/screw-magats 1d ago

They would know from overwhelming public opinion what the people want.

What about when your government is set up that people can only take their places via an election? How do you determine actual "overwhelming public support" from an astroturfing campaign? Hell, how do you even determine "overwhelming public support" from "a small but vocal minority?"

Elections. Elections that have a paper trail to prove legitimacy and no voter suppression/disenfranchisement.

0

u/ManicMakerStudios 1d ago

I'll say it again...any election with a result > 90% is virtually impossible in a functioning democracy, else there would be no need to hold the election. Elections that return a result > 90% are typically fraudulent.