Thursday, November 27, 2014

The Constitution and the Throne made political wedge of convenience.

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.


  1. it is high time pple stop referring throne for every trivial issues to gain political mileage!

  2. What to say Sir. Politics is like this only. What politicians say or do, common people can't understand and what common people want they don't understand. So, lot of confusion la!

  3. Thank you for your insightful observations. We agree that we should have objected on the same day but we did not get the floor as the statement was made just before the voting unexpectedly. However, walkout is not an option as it would only make a bad situation worse. We will continue to do what we can without undermining the dignity of the house by staging a walkout or refraining from voting. Thanks

  4. Thank you your Excellency for your positive response and political attitude. I hold all the MPs in respect and hope that in the democratic process in either of the Houses there will never arise an occasion where it will be necessary to vote on a pro or anti King amendment. The dignity of the House is important but Bhutan needs the dignity of the institution of Monarchy intact. It is my deeply thought out view that principle of democracy and the Throne can together strengthen Bhutan and enhance the sovereignty. It is possible that the Speaker got personally emotional. I know hon'ble Speaker is a very seasoned personality but we all are subject to momentarily weakness.

    My comments are never out of malice or disrespect. It could be simply holding up a mirror. Please accept my respects and regards and I wish Your Excellency well.