Do boycotts work? Should we holiday in a country if we disagree violently with the way it is governed? And does a tourist boycott have any impact on the way a country is run — or on the lives of its citizens? This week we report on the call by the Friends of Maldives for a partial boycott of this island nation, avoiding certain resorts which, they claim, are linked to a president they say contravenes human rights (see news and comment).

They’re not calling for a blanket boycott of the Maldives because they don’t want locals to be penalised by a lack of tourist revenue, especially as the country is getting back on its feet after the tsunami.

The other, high-profile, tourist boycott in place is a call not to visit Burma. As I’ve said before on these pages (following a visit to the country as a tourist, not as a journalist), I feel this boycott call is misguided. The Burmese Government cares nothing for world opinion, so will not feel the sting of our absence. Yet in the country, local people are thrilled to see visitors, as many rely on us for their income. Surprisingly, despite all I had heard before I visited, it is hard to find a government-run hotel — at most smaller establishments, money goes straight to the hotelier — and few local people have heard of Aung San Suu Kyi’s call to tourists to boycott Burma. When I told them of it, most looked troubled, for while they respect her, they want us to visit.

The Burmese regime is appalling — no question. But visiting a country does not mean that we approve of its political system. I vehemently oppose capital punishment but regularly visit the US. Likewise I find offensive the fact that homosexuality is illegal in countries such as the United Arab Emirates, but I will still visit them.

This issue is raised by our feature on gay holidays (see The Specialists). While we profile many of the countries that actively welcome gay and lesbian visitors, some — including Jamaica, the UAE, and The Gambia — are hostile towards homosexuals. But Stephen Coote, UK spokesman for the International Gay and Lesbian Travel Association, argues: “We would tell people to be extremely careful when visiting homophobic places but, unless gay people go to these places, then things will never change.”

Which brings us back to the Maldives. The “partial boycott” campaign is clever because it allows us to continue to visit a beautiful and popular country, which is dependent on tourism, with a clear conscience. As I found in Burma, talking to local people is important to them, and allows their voices to be heard overseas. Avoiding a country entirely simply allows bad things to happen unnoticed.

Times recommends

• Oasis of the Seas: the Times review
• The 20 best new year party places to stay
• Green Spaces 2009: are you the winning writer?