The
Kuensel editorial of Friday the 27th September, 2013, ended with a
food for thought for the public regarding the ruling PDP Party MPs pushing
through National Assembly their intent to amend the part of National Assembly
Act which covers resignation of an MP, to quote, “What should be weighed today is whether it is really necessary to amend
laws just so bruised egos could be mended against ramifications or bearing such
a move would have in future”.
I
have no comment on “bruised egos” or no egos but it is necessary to hazard a
thought on what possible, “ramification or bearing such a move have in future”.
I qualify my thoughts as, “hazard” because it is not possible to predict future
happenings in totality. And I say it is necessary to hazard a thought because
we may be heading towards an end to a dream envisioned by the two Kings of
Bhutan when they initiated the Constitutional Monarchy system for democratic
governance. And I do not want that to happen and therefore the necessity to
make public my thoughts on the issue raised by Kuensel editorial.
The
move by Ruling PDP Party MPs to amend National Assembly Act is to retrospectively
censure the resignation of the President of DPT from the elected post of Member
of Parliament. This objective was made
very clear during the debate in the National Assembly and it is in line with
the Speaker’s initial reaction to JYT resignation letter.
Lyonpo
Pema Gyamtso the leader of the Opposition Party has already hinted what the
reaction would be if an amendment was rammed through at any time by the ruling
party. Like him most Opposition Party MPs may elect to resign than to be a part
of a Parliament that is engaged in censuring their Party President and
therefore the DPT Party itself. One or two DPT MPs could be induced or seduced
to remain with promises of better opportunities so as to preserve a semblance
of a two Party system of governance. But in essence, the noble royal dream of a
Constitutional Monarchy Democratic system will be shattered. It does not mean
that Bhutan will be in political disarray. I think many Bhutanese would be
comfortable with the past Monarchy system being re-instated. Frankly it will
mean that Bhutanese people will have less number of Bosses to bow down to.
In
my assumption, the Constitutional Monarchy system was initiated to meet 3 primary
national goals.
1.
To keep in step with people oriented political
reforms taking place elsewhere in the world.
2.
To meet the aspirations of the increasing number
of educated Bhutanese people who could be trusted to be responsible for their
own future. Recently the King made this aspect very clear when His Majesty said
that Democracy was not a gift. It was a responsibility given from the Throne to
the Bhutanese people.
3.
Ensuring the continuity of the Institution of
Monarchy which was established more than 100 years ago to bring peace and
stability to Bhutan. The Institution of Monarchy is more important to the
Bhutanese people than to the Wangchuck Dynasty. Let me cite just one relevant
example. Few weeks back I asked of a very prominent politician, “How is
Sino-Bhutan Talk going on?” “It is in the safe hands of His Majesty and therefore
progressing very well”, was the immediate reply. In fact during the ongoing
session of the 2nd Parliament, it was reported that Technical Teams
of China and Bhutan had carried out a joint survey at an identified Sino-Bhutan
border area. The two political parties may deal with Bhutan’s giant neighbours
based on their Party’s political expediency but the King of Bhutan on whose
shoulder rests the constitutional responsibility of national security and the
ultimate well being of the people cannot compromise the sovereign interests of
the Kingdom for money or out of fear. This is why I say that Monarchy is the
gravitational force that keeps the nation in its independent orbit.
Now
based on my above 3 assumptions that led to the Constitution of Bhutan, I
cannot imagine that the King of Bhutan will officially grant assent to an
amendment to the National Assembly Act that in effect tantamount to
retrospectively censuring the act of resignation from the elected post of MP by
the President of DPT which is the present Opposition Party. The Throne is
constitutionally placed in neutral political position. It does not mean that
the King cannot intervene. He can and he should in matters of national security
or ultimate well being of the people. But to condone a deliberate political act
of the Ruling Party to censure the President of the political party in
Opposition is literally destroying the very foundation of the political system
set up under the Constitutional Monarchy Democratic Governance.
Democracy
in modern era cannot be bounded by feudalistic limitation. It is ridiculous to
convert tenure of an MP to that of a prison term. If an MP cannot have the
freedom of expression such as resigning for whatever reasons be it politics,
social, economic or simply distaste of the environment, the other lowly
citizens really need to be wary of the new political system. Democracy cannot
be qualified or limited by money. Election expenditure cannot be an absolute reason
to deny basic human right or an expression of democratic freedom. I also feel
that people’s trust in an elected MP is overhyped because in Bhutanese Election
there is no button in the EVM to reject any or all candidates. In a close
community like Bhutan over crowded with political party people, it is very
awkward to abstain from voting and once in the voting booth, the person has no
other choice then to vote for one of the candidates. So it is possible that the
public in general may not be overly concerned if few re-elections are held. And
re-elections due to resignations will be really rare because candidates spend
more money, time and energy and definitely make more sacrifices than any other
to participate in an election. He or she is most unlikely to throw away the
fruit of success unless compelled to.
The
Election Commission had issued a writ barring elected Tshogpas from resigning
based on its argument that re-election was a burden to national resources.
Bhutan’s uniqueness lies in its over the barrel dictates such as the writ
issued by the Election Commission that subvert the very principle of democracy
it is supposed to uphold. That writ was not challenged because the Tshogpas
were only fighting for more pay which they did get. However, it does not mean
that the writ is legally sound. The authority of the Election Commission covers
the period of registration to election result. The authority does not extend
beyond election result declaration day. Once a candidate is declared elected,
that candidate falls outside the purview of the Election law and will be
governed by another constitutional authority or Legislative Act. May be for
that reason, the Election Commission did not interfere in the resignation issue
of former Prime Minister. It just does not have the mandate outside the
election law.
I
have had differences with the former Government. I publicly disagreed with the
Tobacco Act and termed it ‘draconian’ and questioned the government’s motive in
obstructing Bhutan’s membership to WTO. Much before that I had accused the DPT
government of buckling under Indian pressure and withdrawing Bhutanese
participation in the Shanghai International Trade Fair. A lot of people may
also recall my fight against the former government in regard to the freedom of
media. And my view of Pedestrian Day was that it was environmentally sound but
socially most insensitive and arbitrary. I made my stands under my own name and
never anonymously. When Dragong Mining Case in Haa surfaced in May, 2013, I
questioned by then the former Prime Minister about the nightmarish policy of
promoting hydropower projects downstream and destroying water catchment areas
upstream. But for all my disagreements with the DPT led government, I hold JYT
in respectable esteem. And if a section of the people disagreed with his style
of functioning, that is an exercise of political freedom and I respect that
too. He did not betray or compromise the sovereignty of the Kingdom. And he
fulfilled his duty to the royal vision of democratic governance by ensuring
that his party took up the Opposition role under a unanimously elected new
leader. And only then he submitted his resignation letter 2 days prior to the
inaugural ceremony of the 2nd National Assembly. His resignation I
feel was beyond his call since it was so publicly and vocally demanded by his
supporters. My views on his resignation have been adequately expressed in my
article ‘Farewell Democratic Bhutan’s
most prominent MP’ at www. wangchasangey.blogspot.com. The only new thing I
need to add here is that I do appreciate that JYT had endeavoured to seek royal
clearance prior to his resignation letter to the National Assembly Secretary.
So that does put in doubt any suspicion of defiance.
After
listening to part of debates and reading more of the views later in print media,
the proposal to amend the resignation clause in the National Assembly Act could
be in a way taking politics to brinkmanship. Presently Bhutan has two
influential national leaders who are in position to rein in this line of
politics. I appeal to Lyonchen Tshering Tobgay the Prime Minister of Bhutan and
Lyonpo Sonam Kinga Chairman of National Council to give to the royal envisioned
dream a chance to succeed. If they wish it is in their sphere of leadership
influence to guide the energy and intellectual capacity of the MPs beyond the
shadow of former Prime Minister Jigmi Yoezer Thinley and concentrate on present
national affairs rather than engraving ugly epitaph on incidents of yesterdays.
In
expressing my thoughts, I only wish the nation well. My positive or negative
views cannot make any difference to the standing of any political party or
leadership. The intent is only to appeal for happier future if anyone cares to
listen.
From
the beginning of 2012, I kind of sensed that not everything was well in the
Kingdom of Camelot. In early week of August, 2012, somehow, I gathered the
courage to submit my thoughts through Bhutan Post to their Majesty the Kings
and the Prime Minister. I did pray deeply that my submissions would be
graciously viewed. I reproduce herewith a part of the submission which in a way
is a window to my inner heart. I have always been truly committed to the Institution
of the Monarchy and peace and stability of Bhutan.
Hereunder
is the reproduced part of the submission made on 7th August, 2012.
“A citizen would like
to humbly beg to share few heartfelt thoughts with his most respected and
revered God-like His Majesty the King, His Majesty the 4th Druk
Gyalpo and the Hon’ble 1st Prime Minister of Constitutional
Democratic Kingdom of Bhutan.
Internal Political Impression
Constitutional Democracy is a new experiment
for Bhutanese and Bhutan both at national and International level. As such
there will always be in existence some doubts, some hesitation and a minor
trust deficit between authorities, between people and authorities and between
neighbours. However as years go by and the elected governments and the Monarchy
Institution interacts in good faith, the misgivings and bottle necks will
dissipate. A national capacity will
naturally develop that will absorb changes and channel new stream of democratic
thoughts along proven, reliable channels of the past.
Recently, I felt quite disturbed by the
intensity of different views in the mass media in regards to the land amendment
Bill. I don’t know who really were using the forums: were they civil servants,
land commission people, MPs, political groups, simply ordinary Bhutanese out on
a political weekend or outsiders out to create a division between the Prime
Minister and the King. It is my belief that the Royal Person and the Prime
Minister themselves are very much in national unison and the preceding years of
developed trust and respect still prevail.
It is in the interest of any ruling
political party to preserve the sanctity of the Constitutional Monarchy
Institution as much as it is in the interest of the Monarchy Institution to
help nurture and protect the sanctity of democratic governance. Bhutan’s
strength as a sovereign nation and social stability requires the two main
institutions to move in unison in the same direction. We cannot have Thailand
type of tug of war because Bhutanese in general do not want it. They revere
their Monarch and they want the government to concentrate on economic
development and create jobs.
As years go by, I think the Bhutanese King
and Bhutanese Prime Minister (I don’t mean the present), will have no time to
think of their individual turfs and prerogatives. The trend of the future is
very clear. Already we have new
religious groups and with it will come political groups not based on region or
ethnic but on common agenda not necessarily pro national interest.”
In
conclusion I wish to state that sometimes it is necessary to set politics aside
in the interests of overall national well being. It is unhealthy to play off
Prime Minister versus Prime Minister or Prime Minister versus His Majesty the
King. Bhutan is a small nation with huge social and economic burdens. We need
contribution from the best of our people especially national leaders and above
all it is necessary for all Bhutanese to come together to protect and preserve
the sanctity of the Institution of Monarchy and therefore avoid roping in the sacred Institution in the
settlement of political vendetta or in pursuit of gaining political mileage. Pelden
Drukpa Lha Gyalo!
