The National Assembly and National Council differ in the path but are in all united agreement in ensuring their main objective that is to provide job security to the constitutional members.
The National Assembly endorsed the amendment of the rule that requires such constitutional members to resign from their previous service mainly civil service I suppose. That was to enable these members to revert to civil service employment after the 5 year of service in a constitutional body.
The National Council did not want the resignation clause to be amended. It wanted to nullify the clause and make it useless. So the National Council endorsed that a second 5 years term to be instituted. The Council actually wanted to do even better by suggesting the after 5 years service, the members of constitution bodies be accorded paid holiday until they reach the civil service retirement age.
There is no principal except the principal of self service. The Constitution of Bhutan is less than 7 years old and through various social and political gimmicks, it is being prostituted.
The Parliament could have looked into the present predicament of young commission members and then passed a resolution that future members of Commissions be appointed from the pool of civil service or other capable people above the age of 54 years. Even if the nation went for past RCSC top 10 qualified from technical, administrative, finance and general categories, there would be more than sufficient pool of eligible candidates. Plus there are others who prove their mettle during service years.
Actually if a selected Commission candidate does not want to resign after 5 years, why even take up the position? To occupy a constitutional post and then to bring about a coup d'etat to subvert the very same Constitution to prolong self opportunity is as unethical as the offspring abusing the mother. This happens usually only in the animal world. If someone does not want to resign from civil service then one could opt to stay on unless the service is terminated for different reasons.
The present strategy adopted by both National Council and National Assembly is to legislate a legal political lagoon for political fish to swim at their pleasure. The National Assembly is a political body so it is understandable politics even though dirty to secure the next election prospects by rewarding supporters from apolitical institution like Civil Service. But National Council subverting the Constitution to politicise civil service opportunities and even go to the extent of proposing paid holiday demonstrates something is really not well. The solace is that there are few blue members at National Council who are endeavouring to preserve some sense of proportion. How long can that last?
For the general people, it does not really directly affect their livelihood. Most would be struggling and too busy with the demands of life whether Constitution or its stated objective is held sacred or is diluted. It is for those in power and the upper social structure what they want : The Constitution to serve the narrow goal for short lived gain or long term stability that would still preserve their social status even if political position changes back and forth.
Through out history, people have been taught the hard way to survive by bowing down to political power and changes to the extent of even converting religious Faith. Even the much touted elections in supposed democratic world may be once in a blue moon chance to act out the dormant ego and a brief momentary gain of power by common man. And perhaps a chance to make some income. After all in many democracies, the voters clouts are like condoms : acquired, put to effective use and then discarded once the purpose is served. So people's voice means very little after most elections. It is all up to the various institutions and especially those in political power to value the Constitution or sharpen or blunt it as a political tool in accordance to the need of the hour.