India - SEMINAR REPORT

Introductory Remarks: Maj. Gen. Dipankar Banerjee
Bhutan is the newest democracy in SAARC. Democracy in Bhutan is fascinating for the former monarch Jigme Singye Wangchuck, together with his son and current King Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuck, whose formal coronation took place in November 2008, have been instrumental in bringing democracy in Bhutan. Even before the birth of democracy in the country, the proceedings in the governance system involved debates and discussions. The influence of the King remains paramount in the democratisation of Bhutan. India has provided necessary support and assistance to Bhutan and has upheld its sovereignty and national interest.

Dr. Nitasha Kaul
Being a small nation, the significance of geography is evident both within and outside Bhutan. Its vernacular and historical discourse reflects the consciousness and anxiety of being a small nation landlocked between two large states of China and India. Unlike many other countries, the transition to democracy in Bhutan did not entail or precede contemptible stories of violence but instead was a gradual process.

General Elections
The first general elections held on 24 March 2008 witnessed enthusiastic participation with eighty percent turnout. Moreover, the elections were preceded by extensive preparation including the establishment of constitutional bodies such as Anti-Corruption Commission and Election Commission of Bhutan by the King and the governing body to ensure greater accountability. Therefore, democracy is not just about electing leaders for Bhutanese, but also a new kind of system, which embraces greater transparency at all levels of society. A steady move towards devolution of power was clearly evident.

Monarchy in Bhutan and gradual transition to democracy
The monarchy in Bhutan was not a divine right authority. It was elected by the people partly with British approval in 1907. This system has remained fairly stable over a century. Bhutan is a country with a cautious approach to modernization. It vigorously guards its culture that is an integral part of Bhutanese identity. Today, democracy itself is acting as a nation-building process in Bhutan. Paradoxically, the beginning of Wangchuck Dynasty in 1907 marked the onset of modernity in Bhutan. One of the most important developments of 1907 was the secular centralization of power in an attempt to keep political realm separate from religion.  This tradition continues even as the country adapts to democracy. In the March elections, members of the religious establishment were not allowed either to take part or participate directly or indirectly in the political realm. The first National Assembly of Bhutan was set up in 1953 after the third monarch inherited the power. Further research into the functioning of National Assembly and the Royal Advisory Council established in 1967 indicates the survival of parliamentary forms of debates and discussions under the monarchy. The fourth King Jigme Singye Wangchuck, who was enthroned in 1974, accelerated the process of modernization in Bhutan cautiously with the creation of official Bhutanese currency Ngultrum. The years 1981 and 1991 are notable with regards to decentralization of power to the district and later to the block levels in the respective years. In 1998, the King dissolved the government and devolved the power to a new Executive Council of Ministers with annually rotating Prime Ministership. In fact, DPT (Druk Phuensum Tshogpa), the party that won the election with a landslide majority, had more Prime Ministers than the opposing party. In 1999, televisions and internet were allowed in Bhutan. In 2001, the King initiated drafting of a constitution that underwent several revisions and public consultations. This constitution came to be a more liberal document over time with the King’s efforts who abdicated his throne in favour of his son Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuck in December 2006. The mock elections were held in the following year.

The democratic transition has been evidently an earnest process. Before the elections, every party entered into familiarizing democracy to the people. This was indeed necessary as people’s association and understanding of democracy has been confined to its practice in the neighbouring countries and across the globe. Democracy to Bhutanese predominantly encompasses divisive politics and weak governance. People in large parts of the country had to be enlightened about the desirability of democracy in the country. A number of legislations were passed relating to civil society and non-governmental organizations. The deliberate plan to educate people on accountability and responsibility in politics was simultaneously progressing with the change in the pattern of statehood.  The colossal victory of DPT was astounding for the number of votes it swept as also for being geographically inclusive.

Democracy as Responsibility rather than a Right
The transition carried with it economic and moral incentives in order to convince the masses about democracy. The government provided financial assistance to those who came to participate in the election and related events at the cost of their daily economic activity. The moral incentive is crucial to a faith-based country like Bhutan. Unlike other democracies in the world, democracy in Bhutan was not a right but a responsibility that came as a gift to the people from their beloved King. The vote was projected as a precious jewel in people’s possession. Therefore, the first election was bereft of voter’s apathy. Ratification of Constitution being the first action of the elected government, the government made a remarkable commitment in the Constitution to keep sixty percent of the land in Bhutan under forest cover in perpetuity. The pro-environmental attitude of the country is also evident in their pledge on carbon neutrality following the Copenhagen Conference. This is in sync with the development philosophy of Gross National Happiness (GNH). Also, the Constitution mandates a retirement age for
the King.

Challenges Ahead
The public culture in Bhutan in the recent times has been non-confrontational in overt terms. This is likely to change with democracy. There is plausibility of mounting open litigiousness as democracy settles in. Political communication is expected to be more professional in future. Opinion polls were not allowed in the previous election as it was feared to influence the voters, but it might come up in future with clear political allegiance and open display of disagreements. In the first election, people chose not to celebrate their victory and organize political rallies as a cautionary measure against divisive politics. The levels of expectations from politicians will be more formalized with better clarity in people’s thoughts on the capacities of an elected leader in a democracy. The constraints imposed on the candidates and sources of funds for elections could become more flexible in future.
Apart from having an enlightened monarch, the reasons for transition to democracy have been the extreme political trajectory in neighbouring states and the fear that the welfare system under the Bhutanese King might threaten the growth of private sector enterprises, which in future would be necessary to provide employment opportunities to the educated people of the state. Additionally, with the renewal and updating of the 1949 Indo-Bhutan friendship treaty in 2007, a democratic Bhutan can work towards its self-interest, something crucial for a hydropower-rich bio-diverse country in between two populous energy deficient countries. Also, the wider exposure to world through internet and other sources has encouraged the younger generation to aspire for a space to make opinions and choices on policies that affect their lives. There is a hope that democracy promises greater transparency and accountability while reinforcing deeper regional ties with the neighbouring states.

• Historically, there has been a dual system of administration in Bhutan that separated religion and politics. As a result, religion and politics operated parallel to one another. The monks and other members of the religious establishment are not provided voting rights because of the fear of an entanglement of religion with party politics of a parliamentary democracy as the monasteries are state funded. While in the political realm, the candidates were not allowed to invoke religious sentiments to seek votes, the auspicious time for conducting an election was sought. This reveals the complex nature of human beings who are often both religious and secular at the same time.
• The institution of monarchy is acknowledged as an additional safety net by people should something go wrong with democracy. There is no fear about people not being able to express their views in democracy, especially because of the conscious media in the country.
• Democracy is understood to grant space for minority population to voice their concern and express opinions. There is recognition of the scarring episodes that occurred in Bhutan between 1989 and 1993. There is hope for protection of minority rights since the democratic election has been geographically inclusive. 
• The issue of security clearance in the south of the country is an issue for the families of the insurgents and the moderates. The government realizes its priority to address the predicaments of the minorities. With the Kind proclaiming the ‘one nation one vision’ philosophy, Bhutan is seeking to integrate its population.
  

Report by
Annapoorna Karthika,
Research Officer, IPCS
e-mail: annapoorna@ipcs.org