Advertisement
Published: April 15th 2008
Edit Blog Post
Bhutan has now transitioned from an absolute monarchy to a parliamentary democracy with a constitutional monarchy… at least in theory and by all intents and purposes. However…
Since ascending the throne in 1972 the 4th King, Jigme Singye Wangchuck, has moved Bhutan ever closer to open elections and a full implementation of democracy with a constitution. Though the institution of the King still holds the position of head of state under the new system and he can veto laws instituted by the parliament, he is expected to honor the mandates of parliament and only nix anything that endangers the integrity of the state. However, the parliament also has the ability to dethrone the King with a 60 percent majority. The king wanted to set up democracy in Bhutan because - like Nepal - he was not so sure there would always be a benevolent king to rule Bhutan. He wanted to ensure the integrity of Bhutan. However, the majority of Bhutanese are perplexed as to why they need democracy when they believe their hereditary kings are responsible for 100 years of a stable and peaceful country. The 4th Kings son now holds the throne and has continued his father’s legacy.
Tug-o-War
Photo: Sonam Pem At first grudgingly and with much skepticism, the electorate has adopted the spirit of democracy with all its beauty and blemishes.
At the end of January, without much fanfare, the people of Bhutan elected the upper house called the National Council (NC). These positions aren’t partisan and the NC is considered the weaker house. There were promises made and the sudden elevation of the winning candidates has become a predicament for these National Councilors. They are subject to the constituents who now see them as able to grant whatever wish they ask for - from new roads to special permits. Oh the responsibilities of democracy.
And at the end of March, elections were completed in the lower house known as the National Assembly. This story was way more involved in divisions and debates - at least there was a great show of it.
Vying for a simple majority in each constituency, in one corner we had the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) represented by a horse and in the other, the Druk Phuentsom Tshogpha (DPT) represented by three black-necked cranes. A Bhutanese guy told me this joke: The PDP is represented by a show horse that can’t bare
a load so if elected would be worthless and the DPT is represented by the migrating cranes and if elected would only spend part of the year in Bhutan and would fly away with the wealth.
The PDP was headed by Lyonpo Sangay Ngedup (Lyonpo is a title given to people of high service to the Kingdom of Bhutan), the elder brother of the four wives of the 4th King (therefore, the uncle of the 5th King). He was an ex-government minister as well as former Prime Minister. The PDP was the first political party to form for the transition to democracy. The PDP recruited impressive and well qualified candidates to run in constituencies all across the country.
The problem with democracy is that there has to be another party to run against (unless it’s South Africa). So the DPT was formed by the popular and charismatic champion of Gross National Happiness, Lyonpo Jigme Y. Thinley. The DPT proceeded to recruit a qualified and diverse group of candidates representing multiple generations.
Both parties embraced GNH as guiding principles and both avowed allegiance to the King and there didn’t appear to be much difference between the two parties.
Unfortunately, there wasn’t much debate on the finer differences. The way I see it is summed up by how my friend explained it. In the media sector, the heads of the companies supported the PDP and the workers supported the DPT. The PDP supported introduction of private medical practice and generally opening up more rapidly to foreign investments. Where as the DPT wanted to strengthen social services including the universal health care system and education. The PDP promised more rapid development and the DPT emphasized equity and justice. Unfortunately, those points were mostly lost amidst the character debates and petty corruption allegations.
As part of the GNH principle of Good Governance the Electoral Commission placed an emphasis on anti-corruption. There was even an anti-corruption awareness day in December with a concert and performances in Clocktower Square. With so much publicity about corruption maybe people assumed the chicken came before the egg - that corruption was lingering somewhere in every corner of this new democracy. The parties focused on routing out any miniscule form of it. The Electoral Commission must have been bored at their jobs, because all sorts of decrees were issued. Many seemed indiscriminate and were not related
Wrestling
Photo: Sonam Pem to any proven reality of whether the actions contributed to corruption or not. One of the more inane rules was the ban on politicians attending any ceremonies for wrathful deities. One candidate was actually accused of this.
So after a couple months of petty debates that actually increased the interest of the electorate, Election Day was held on March 24th, the weekend after the Paro Tsechu, the election Commission instituted a 48-hour ban on media running political articles as well as politicking by candidates.
That Monday was declared a holiday and all shops were closed until 5 PM. Quietly, the electorate went to the polls. There were barely any cars or people in the streets of Thimphu. In fact, the city of 80,000 basically emptied out. Only 10,000 people were registered to vote in Thimphu. All voters were required to register and vote in their home village, so the majority of the population of Thimphu filled every last bus to go home to vote.
The outcome of the election was perplexing, though - to me - welcomed. I met Jigme Thinley in Bangkok and I was impressed with his advocacy of GNH, so when I walked by
the Bhutan Times office and read their reader board I was shocked but elated. They declared that night that the DPT won and secured 44 seats to the PDPs 3. The next day it turned out the DPT won overwhelmingly in most districts 47 seats to the PDPs 3. Later, in a recount, the PDP lost 1 of the 3 seats. The final 2 PDP ministers threatened to quit. Therefore, in a landslide the DPT secured a mandate of the electorate… which could actually be problematic for a “healthy democracy”.
Aum Chime, the Secretary general of Tarayana, believes the public actually failed the King’s wishes for a vibrant democracy. With no significant opposition in the NA there isn’t a possibility for healthy debate. Differences within the party will probably start to develop and could lead to future political divisions - perhaps similar to South Africa.
Many people were trying to understand why the PDP - who were thought to be the favored party with many well-qualified candidates - lost by such a wide margin. The media has speculated that voters from Thimphu who went back to their villages influenced their relatives to vote for the DPT. However, based
on character, Jigme Thinley was portrayed as more humble than the more presumptuous Sangay Ngedup. As well, PDP candidates were viewed by the electorate as more susceptible to corruption. Clearly, voters voted for a party rather than for individual candidates. Many better qualified candidates from the PDP lost by large margins to their DPT opponents.
All in all Bhutan’s new democracy will continue to evolve. I’m of the mind, considering this outcome, Bhutan should embrace proportional representation so that no 1 party can sweep the polls and all voting Bhutanese will be represented. Also, they should have all voters register where they live rather than in their home village to avoid alienating voters who can’t travel to the polls and avoid the urban influence on the rural electorate (and free up busses so foreign travelers can get to places like Bumthang before they leave the country). But it was quite an impressive peaceful transition to democracy. Over 80 percent of the electorate (about 400,000 Bhutanese) voted and it was declared by international monitors to be fair and equitable.
Advertisement
Tot: 0.111s; Tpl: 0.025s; cc: 10; qc: 55; dbt: 0.0529s; 1; m:domysql w:travelblog (10.17.0.13); sld: 1;
; mem: 1.2mb
Robert Vermeers
non-member comment
Fledgling Democracy
It is fascinating and instructional to learn about alternative democracies. They provide an excellent counter-point to our own system. I believe we can better understand our own system by studying other democracies the same way I learned more about English grammar by taking Latin, with its different structure, than just studying English grammar. You gain a better perspective by viewing and understanding other systems. These alternative systems might be understood as you would comprehend one color viewed as a contrast to others in the same picture.