It was said in the Parliament that amending the Election Act tantamount to looking the gift horse in the mouth. The Ruling Party felt that the opposition party was acting disloyally in endorsing the changes that a legislative committee had put up to the National Assembly.
On the other hand the ruling party amended the constitutional post holder rule against the objection of the opposition party. Does this mean that when amendment is made by the ruling party the changes are not against the Throne and when amendment is supported by the opposition party the changes are deemed to be against the Throne?
It is also confusing that the opposition party participated in the vote on amendment to election Act and the next day took upon the Speaker's stand made the other day just before the election act vote.
Why participate in the vote if the opposition felt that the Speaker was denouncing the party stand as anti- Throne? Why protest a day later if the Speaker's admonition was untrue. They should have walked out instead of voting.
Why did the ruling party amend the constitutional post holder rules if anything gifted by the Throne must be kept intact and changes viewed as being an act of disloyalty?
Are both parties out to discredit the Constitution and the Throne ? One directly and the other indirectly?
I feel that the path of democracy in Bhutan is being highjacked by party enmity and in the process the constitution and the Throne are being soiled. This trend of dragging the dignity of Throne into party squabbles is most unsettling.