BHUTAN: Infant Democracy and Growing Pains: Update No. 84

BHUTAN: Infant Democracy and Growing Pains: Update No. 85

By Dr. S. Chandrasekharan

There is no end to surprises in Bhutan and one cannot but be fascinated by the growing challenges this young democracy is facing in the day to day administration. Where else could one think of a “catechism” class being held by the Chief Justice of Supreme Court to the newly appointed judges among others of their responsibilities, their behaviour and their duties, or the Prime Minister taking a class for the GAO Administrative Officers (the lowest level of government appointed administrative officers) on their relationship with the elected Gups and their duties.

More surprising, is that for a well ordered, disciplined, hierarchical society, ideas that go against the core values of the country are being allowed to be published and freely discussed. This is a big and a welcome change and as I have said before and repeatedly, Bhutan is developing healthy democratic roots.

Prof. Mencall on Public Space:

In the second week of May, Prof. Mark Mencall, Professor of History, emeritus of Stanford University, gave a presentation at Thimpu on the need for everyone in a democracy to have “access” to public space. He said that the essence of democracy is discourse, disagreement and dialogue through which citizens equip themselves with critical wisdom to make crucial decisions that concerns the community they form. He added that for a democracy there should be public space for everyone regardless of what income, social class or any other consideration.

The Professor also suggested that there should be public space for freedom of speech without fear of punishment, through dialogue, speech, debate and discussion.

Bhutan is a highly structured society with visible signs of hierarchy and yet the professor’s views were published fully in the government-owned Kuensel.

Khentse Rinpoche on rethinking of many traditional values:

In yet another detailed, essay on “More Questions and Few Answers,” Kuensel published in great detail the views of Dzongsar Khentse Rinpoche on various aspects of life in Bhutan that go against the very grain many of the “embedded positions” in the country. What is more, a lively discussion is taking place in public on the issues raised by Rinpoche. The essay in brief touched the following aspects.

For Buddhists, the GNH (Gross National Happiness) is nothing new, as Buddha had taught that where there is greed, there will be no happiness.
The problem the country (Bhutan) is facing is, how to find a balance between preserving and strengthening sovereignty, develop economically and materially and at the same time preserve the most vital core of traditional values.
First, there will have to be a rethinking on jobs. Start respecting all kinds of productive labour, no matter what social position the people hold and give up dress codes which are hierarchical that are often forms of divisiveness.
Second relates to rethinking on culture. One of the core pillars of GNH is culture. Culture is important for the identity and sovereignty of the nation. But it should not mean pushing the people to do what their ancestors did fifty or a hundred years earlier. Resisting change and encouraging people to be happy on what they have, might serve the purpose of GNH, but it is unwise to mimick old habits. Discard traditions, practices and forms that no longer serve the people.
Third, there should be a rethinking on the use of Dzongkha language. Despite government encouragement and enforcement, most Bhutanese do not speak Dzongkha and those who do, speak it poorly with even poorer reading and writing skills. Bhutanese will soon have to learn English to study and practice dharma since there are more dharma translated into English than in Dzongkha. It is debatable whether the huge expenditure of time and resources in cultivating Dzongkha is worthwhile just for preserving the national identity. Strong emphasis on Dzongkha may actually undermine and diminish rather than enhance one’s sovereignty and potential contribution to the world.
People must have the courage to raise tough questions and seek answers. People should abandon outworn practices, symbols, traditions that no longer serve any purpose and should identify what is most genuine, wise and lasting in Bhutan’s heritage and adopt creatively and with integrity and innovation in order to be in the modern world. Attaining these is a fine challenge to the GNH-BASED education system.

On the question of language, there is certainly a need to go slow on the strong emphasis in Dzongkha language. One has to take note of over 25 percent of the population whose mother tongue is Nepalese and who stand alienated even other wise. On 21^st May, the Minister for Information and Communication told the press that the government has no plans to revive the Nepalese language version of Kuensel that was stopped in 1990 and the reason given was that there is a possibility of “violence” if revived. Violence from whom? The Nepalese language curriculum was also closed in 1990. The present government of Bhutan should review its position on these issues. Democracy has to be inclusive and there should be “public space” for all as mentioned by Prof. Mencall.

Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz’s Advice against joining WTO:

Famous economist and Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz visited Bhutan in the first week of May. In his interaction with the government he advised them not to join the WTO. His reasoning was that the WTO has inbuilt asymmetry in its design and that for a country like Bhutan that is trying to develop, the costs exceed benefits. He cautioned Bhutan to manage its resources carefully as otherwise in the years to come, it could end up as a rich country with poor people like many other countries of today.

One interesting point he made was that quantifying GNH is possible, if only one could strike a balance between subjective and objective measures.

I am not sure whether it is easy to quantify an abstract issue like GNH, though the Bhutan GNH Commission which has been in existence for almost three eyars has been attempting to do so.

Experiments to quantify started in 2008 through a list of 9 themes that included health, education, psychological well being, time used etc. 9 variables and 72 indicators were used to make a road map for studying every aspect of peoples’ lives and questions included how individuals spend their time, their sense of safety, level of involvement in cultural activities, their perceptions on the government etc..

These questions and the survey just to make a quantitative study are too intrusives and many may not even give proper answers. This raises the basic question whether it is necessary at all to quantify Gross National Happiness unless the government wants to compare its performance objectively with the GNH index.

Gups and GAOs: Gewog administrative officers to work under Gups.

In the government setup, an experiment is being tried in placing the officials to work under the elected representatives at the local level. It will be interesting to watch how this system would work. Imagine in India, the Taluk Officer working under the elected MLA of the area!. In Maldives, another infant democracy, President Nasheed despite promises earlier has appointed officials at provincial levels for administration!

The issue of pre eminence between Gups and GAOs ( Gewog Administrative officers) was discussed for three days at Thimpu in the second week of May. In the closing address the Prime minister reminded this GAOs who are to work under the Gups that they should not bring their ego in between. They will have to work hand in hand and maintain good relations with each other and build capacity to help the villagers. He warned the GAOs to build good relationship with the Gups and gain their respect and if they do not, they may be removed anytime on the recommendation of the local government headed by Gup.

Supreme Court Chief Justice’s Advice to the Judges.

In the sixth day of annual judicial conference of 6^th June, the Supreme Court Chief Justice Lyonpo Sonam Tobgye gave a virtual class room lecture to over 35 officers of the judiciary, on the philosophical basis of justice. He asked them to keep their minds open till the last day of the case. He added that judges should be open to various ideas, legal philosophies and rules of law. He also wanted the judges to specialise in one or two areas or subjects and wanted emphasis on the quality of judgements.

Electoral System:

The Centre for Bhutan Studies raised an interesting point whether the present electoral system need to be modified in view of the under representation of the opposition in comparison to the votes polled by them in the last general election. The point made was that the seats in parliament should be in proportion to the number of votes cast.

By this argument, the Peoples’s democratic party (PDP) should have 33 percent representation or 15 seats in the National Assembly since 33.96 percent of votes were cast in the party’s favour during the 2008 general elections. They currently have only 2 out of 47 seats- quite disproportionate to the number of votes polled.

The Election Commission however feels that Bhutan is not ready yet for a change as the democracy here unlike Britain where it is being considered, has not reached a high level of “sophistication.”

Bhutan as of now has literally no opposition though the opposition party obtained over 33 percent of the votes. This is certainly a distortion on representation, an anomaly that needs to be examined.

The Refugee Issue:

On the refugee issue, it is reported that the Prime ministers of Nepal and Bhutan discussed about the refugee problem on the side lines of the SAARC meeting. It is said that both sides agreed that the “bilateral discussions on the issue of the people in the camps must be kept going.”

The Minister in charge of foreign Affairs of Bhutan responded in the press conference to a question that the two governments are using every opportunity to interact and discuss the issue to find a lasting solution, based on the “understanding the two governments reached earlier.”

The two statements mean nothing and a lasting solution is being thought of by countries other than Bhutan and Nepal by taking the bulk of the refugees for third country settlement. Both the countries do not seem to be interested any more on the refugee issue.

The least that Bhutan could do is to take first the refugees already identified as Bhutanese citizens in the counting done in the Kudenabari camp instead of making periodic pro forma statements.

Nepal too, involved in its own internal problems should not unnecessarily raise the hopes of the poor refugees and instead find ways and means to settle those who will be left behind after those opting for third country settlement leave the country.