By Chiranjib Haldar
Amidst the hullabaloo over elections in Pakistan and Prime Minister Nawaj Sharif being sworn in for the third time, we seem to have forgotten that Bhutan also went for the first stage of polling with the decisive final round slated in July. For the Bhutanese democracy, the hustings carry enormous significance and the masses are awaiting the results with bated breath. While the Pakistan elections have grabbed eyeballs and headlines with hours of prime time chats hovering on the subject, Bhutan an equally important strategic neighbour underway with its second historic ballot has hardly been covered. One reason could be that the second general election and the positive publicity around democracy in Bhutan do look attractive to many in the comity of nations owing to the peaceful transition from absolute monarchy to parliamentary democracy.
Bhutan’s second tryst with democracy after the transition in March 2008 when the monarchy relinquished its powers, throws a tough challenge for the ruling regime if it is to repeat its landslide win. Compared to two parties in the first ballot, there is a quadrangular fight to enter parliament in July 2013 with a staggered polling. Many point to the flowering of democracy in seeing two new political parties the Druk Nymrub Tshogpa (DNT) and Druck Chirwang Tshogpa (DCT), both led by women contesting the polls. They will be competing against the ruling Druk Phuensum Tshogpa (DPT) and the opposition People’s Democratic Party (PDP). With 47 parliamentary seats up for grabs, there seems to be a fair degree of consensus about key issues facing Bhutan. Rejuvenating the economy, narrowing the income disparity between the rich and poor, improving education and healthcare and investing in roads and transport infrastructure.
While Thimphu gets ready to swear in a government for the second time, its first stint has shown a trait similar to its big neighbour. Jigme Thinley’s ruling DPT regime’s image had taken a severe beating after two of its ministers were convicted in a land scam. Though a section of reports suggest the Druk Phuensum Tshogpa would return to power albeit with a wafer-thin majority unlike the clean sweep of 2008, the presence of two new parties would make the going tough. And despite a democratic process underway, many opinion makers have voiced concern that Bhutan is still a controlled democracy and the monarchy indirectly calls the shots.
Many critics argue that the King’s democratisation project is intended at silencing the demand for real democracy raised by the Bhutanese who were expelled from the country. Another criticism is that the elections were meant ‘to hoodwink the international community’ into accepting that Bhutan was a democracy. While many Bhutanese rubbish these notions the fact is Bhutan’s fledgling democracy is still under scrutiny with respect to legitimate free and fair polls. In the 2008 polls, the DPT secured 45 out of 47 seats, a tally which would put the word absolute majority to shame despite being a national one-to-one contest. As Bhutan’s second general election is underway, there are still reports of human rights abuses, political imprisonment and refugee crises unresolved under the first government.
Bhutan till recently the Himalayan kingdom of yore, as a nation has somehow been romanticised by many. The last Shangri la ruled by the extremely benevolent monarch with his unique economic policy called Gross National Happiness (GNH). The election results could expose some fissures on the popular notion of Gross National Happiness, an index Bhutan uses to measure the material and mental wealth of its citizens. The average Bhutanese still encapsulates democracy as a gift given to its citizenry by the King. When the Election Commission was first established in Bhutan in 2008, it banned the exiled parties from contesting the polls, a stand that had been refuted by many critics. But tarnishing Bhutan’s democratic credentials on the ground that exiled parties are excluded from the political process does not cut ice especially when the opaque nexus between militant outfits, political organisations and mass agitations in refugee camps has been unearthed.
The Constitution promulgated granted enormous powers to the monarchy and was termed a tool of the palace or a farce by many. The King was vested with absolute powers to sack the elected Prime Minister or his Cabinet. He has enormous legislative powers to convene extraordinary sessions, to nominate eminent persons constituting one-fifth of the Upper House and has the right to block bills unanimously passed by both legislatures. In addition to the powers given to the Monarch, Article 2 of the Constitution prohibits the Parliament from amending any of his constitutional powers. Some critics believe that the Constitution has given legitimacy to the King’s absolute power and that violates the very essence of a Constitution. Others argue that the last part of this section grants the fundamental right to change these provisions, including the form of government, through a national referendum under Article 2(26).
There may be many Bhutanese whose romanticised vision of the last Shangri La cloud their perspective on the unromantic reality of politics and governance. Nestled in the eastern Himalayas, Bhutan has always conjured up images of peace and tranquility. A country of serene and striking geographic beauty, this setting also brought with it an isolation that kept Bhutan politically sealed off from the rest of the world as an absolute monarchy until 2008, when it became a democracy. Bhutan has to do a tightrope in matters of foreign policy a swell balancing its two big neighbours India and China in tandem with its geo-strategic compulsions. Bhutan is facing unique challenges today, not only across its borders but also internally. The gradual shift of power from the Palace to the Parliament has seen a paradigm shift in its ethos. As Bhutan elects its second government, the most compelling question is whether the new regime can emerge as a representative of the people or will the elected government remain a proto-feudal representative of the elite.
(The writer is a commentator on South Asian affairs)