Media Arbitration Office of ECB in drawing an ill conceived conclusion about breach of social media electoral regulations by the author in posting a gist of his forth coming book may be a bridge too far to cross. I doubt the grounds on which the ECB can stand upon to support the conclusion of its own office of media arbitration.
Having said that, I agree that there is no doubt that the post puts DPT in bad light during a most awkward time of fighting an election. But can one question the legality or political electorial appropriateness of the post which repeats what were mostly debated about in the last 5 years. Moreover, the post is a continuation of the author's string of his sentiments that expressed his distastes against DPT. There was this " DPT would be the last Party I would join " statement from him. And sometime back, the author re-awakened the wechat controversy related to DPT Party at Tsirang. All these social media posts are related to DPT as a Political Party and this 2018 General Election.
Is ECB media arbitration office of the view that third parties ( not political party or candidate ) but Bhutanese citizens cannot bring to light any view that may have substantial valid ground but damaging to the image of a Political Party? Why must ECB dictate that voters/ public must treat Political Parties with silken gloves? If such is the guiding principle of ECB, then that is a gagging order upon the public. And certainly undemocratic in nature to be imposed during a democratic election process.
Political Parties and politicians are not sacrosanct under the constitution. So unless the allegation is dubious and unsubstantiated, it is fair game to target a Political Party or a candidate especially during election time. At other times, such would be a cry in the wilderness in terms of impact so why even bother?
Why is it against election law or social media regulation of ECB to express views personal or otherwise that have substantial valid ground? If these were new charges and have no substantiated grounds then it can be construed as attempt to wrongfully malign a Political Party with intent to reduce its success in the ongoing election. But here a royal court had already ruled that DPT committed siditious acts and the same verdict was not challenged by the Party for whatever reasons. I believe DPT had abstained from pursuing the said case further for the good cause of healing the nation. And I appreciate the exercise of good political sense on the part of DPT. However, we cannot take the author to task for harping upon the seditious charges again.
This latest post by the author certainly was uncalled for and may appear to damage DPT. But did it do any good to the stature of the author himself as the former NC Chairman and prevailing red scarf officer status? And moreover, what good purpose did it serve the Institution of the Monarchy?
I am appalled by the post itself not just the timing. Bhutan has been making a transition from absolute monarchy to a democratic party system under a constitutional monarch. Democracy was granted as a gift from the Throne and not wrested by a popular movement.
Still because of the complexities involved in the processes, the new path is fraught with dangers. The process is a precedent by itself in the world of international governing system. There will be mis-understandings, confusions, suspicions.
and trepidations. Lets not fuel it further..
The difference in style in thought and implemention is not limitted to the royal person of a King and the official pursuits of a Prime Minister. Unfortunately, undesirable selfish power interests and struggles of those who surround the Royal Secretariat and the Office of Prime Minister comes into plays.
Take for example the Tibetan Lamas' incarnation disputes. The incarnate problems are heightened by supporters and office bearers and in many ways the spiritual incarnates are captive powers misused by those who outwardly claim to serve the incarnates. I do not think that the two Karmapas will comes to blows if they meet but the followers in two camps are ready to eliminate the other if given the opportunity.
Therefore, in my opinion, Lyonpo Sonam Kinga's post has unnecessarily depicted a picture of Kingdom in transition turmoil. And this is a image of Druk Yul that we can do without. We have problems but certainly so far all changes and grievances are very much absorbable and manageable within the constitutional provisions that Bhutan adopted 10 years ago.
Bhutan as a democratic constitutional Kingdom is gradually tackling the epic transitional situations in the best possible manner with ultimate goal to nuture the political process to a state where the people, the politicians and the institution of Monarchy are comfortable and productively geared towards preserving the national sovereign dignity, the promotion of gnh vision and goals of economic self reliance and the all pressing immediate goals of reducing poverty and unemployment.
In my view, the fb post of the author has diluted his own social, political and intellectual statures. DPT as a Political Party is unhappy but I do not think the post actually impacted the political ground of the Party negatively. It could have hardened the resolve of DPT supporters and more sympathies from voters.
In his letter to ECB, Lyonpo/ Dasho Sonam Kinga makes a reference to himself taking up an apolitical post/ responsibilities in the very near future. That he contends is one of the reason why he as an author of a book about politics had had to promote the book now within this limitted open time space i.e. before taking up the apolitical post. I hope he is talking about an NGO post not an constitutional apolitical post. I feel he has unwittingly damaged any chance of impartially occupying a constitutional apolitical post as long as DPT exist as a political entity. It is obvious that his deep distaste for DPT will make it difficult for him to conduct the responsibilities of a constitutional apolitical post holder in required impartial manner. Ofcourse I guess the Privy Coucil about which there used to be rumours of him joining is least to do with national political affairs where political Parties are concerned. Thus debatably open for him if considered.
I wish that DPT had not taken up this issue with ECB Media Arbitration. And that the Media arbitration office should have ordered the author to remove what it now deemed as " offensive post " without DPT even taking up the cause. It was there for the whole world to see. How come ECB Media Arbitration did not see it and if seen had kept silent ?
My humble and sincere advice to DPT President is please withdraw your complaint. Now you know where it is heading. If ECB does not over rule the ill conceived conclusion of media arbitration office, this case is going to High Court. And you know what happens when everything under the sun and moon are dissected both in court and in public forum. A Political Party is damaged no matter how the verdict comes out ultimately. And others too get roped in the whirpool of hate politics. Please be serious by way of deeds about healing the nation and serving Tsawa Sum. The author is only an individual not a political entity like a Political Party.
I pray for politically sensibility and individual responsibility in the future course of actions by all three parties: The author, the DPT Party and the ECB.
Are you dismissing the DPT's 2013 seditious meeting as being a benign natural part of the process of transitioning from Monarchy to democracy and likening its gravity to that of the "who is the real Karmapa debate?"? For your own good, I hope not. Because if what I am inferring from your article is true, then you are not half as smart or wise or patriotic as you would like your readers to believe.
ReplyDelete