In March 2008, the kingdom of Bhutan, an often invisible Shangri-La tucked away strategically in the Himalayas between India and China, became the world’s youngest democracy. An absolute monarchy gave way to a constitutional monarchy, a new Constitution mandating a parliamentary democracy was adopted, and, for the first time, the people of Bhutan voted, on the basis of universal suffrage, to elect a new Parliament consisting of a National Council or Upper House with 25 members, and a National Assembly or Lower House with 47 members. Jigme Thinley became the country’s first democratically elected Prime Minister. In the second elections in 2013, his Peace and Prosperity Party was defeated by the People’s Democratic Party. Its leader, Tshering Tobgay, a young Harvard educated man in his mid-forties, is today the Prime Minister of Bhutan.
When I
went as Ambassador of India to Bhutan in 2009, many foreign observers believed
that the adoption of parliamentary democracy was more a cosmetic exercise which
essentially left untouched the unfettered sway of the monarchy. It is true, of
course, that the monarchy continues to enjoy a very high degree of reverence
and popularity. But it would be wrong to believe that democracy in this once
absolutist kingdom is only symbolic, and has not altered the powers hitherto
exercised exclusively by the King.
To
understand what has really happened in Bhutan, it is essential to go a little
back into history. The Wangchuck dynasty came to power in 1907 by uniting a bunch
of warring chieftains. The fourth king in this dynasty, Jigme Singye Wangchuck,
assumed power in July 1972 at the young age of 17 following the untimely death
of his father. Jigme Wangchuck brought to the throne a wisdom and sagacity that
belied his youthfulness and lack of experience. Having laid the foundations of
peaceful economic development and political stability with full support from
India, he applied his mind seriously to the future course of his kingdom. Until
the 1980s, Bhutan had sought to zealously preserve its geographical isolation, preferring
to let the world go by.
But
this began to gradually change under the fourth king. First, he transferred
most of his powers to a nominated Council of Ministers, thereby volitionally
diluting the concentration of power in the throne. Then, in 1999, he allowed
both television and Internet to make their entry into Bhutan.
Finally,
and most dramatically, in December 2005, when he was only 50 years of age, he
announced his decision to abdicate from the throne in 2008 in favour of his
eldest son, Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuck. This announcement was accompanied
by a royal command that work on a new Constitution must begin immediately with
the express purpose of converting Bhutan into a parliamentary democracy with a
constitutional monarchy.
Why did
Jigme Singye Wangchuck, whom I had the great privilege of coming to know very
well, take these momentous decisions which would curtail his own absolute
powers, especially since there was no political restlessness seeking a change
of the polity? In fact, most people in this sparsely populated kingdom
(population 0.8 million) were happy with their king, and actually had to be
persuaded to embrace democracy. The answer quite simply is that Jigme Wangchuck
had the political incisiveness, rarely seen in monarchs, to pre-empt history.
He knew that in a rapidly globalising world, Bhutan could not sustain its
isolationist path; he also knew, looking at developments in neighbouring Nepal,
that sooner or later there would be a democratic challenge to an absolute
monarchy. In view of this, he chose to anticipate the inevitable by initiating
change himself. In doing so he also created the most sustainable milieu for the
perpetuation of his own dynasty.
Today,
democracy is taking roots in Bhutan. The young fifth king, Jigme Namgyel
Wangchuck, wise beyond his years, and Queen Jetsun Pema, are loved by the
Bhutanese. Prime Minister Tobgay, whose smooth transition from Opposition leader
to Prime Minister I have been personally witness to, is an able leader. The
National Assembly still functions — especially compared to our raucous
standards — with monotonous decorum. Legislators rarely speak out of turn.
There is no din in the House. But issues are debated with vigour and
conviction. The king addresses the House at the beginning of a session if he
chooses to do so.
Otherwise
his presence suffices. He remains above the democratic fray, but is very much
bound by the Constitution. Although the process is cumbersome, the king can
actually be impeached under the Constitution by Parliament. Moreover, the
Constitution also mandates that a monarch must compulsorily retire at the age
of 65. Democracy, albeit with a strong Bhutanese flavour, has come to stay in
the Forbidden Kingdom, and India, as the world’s largest democracy, can only
welcome it.
0 comments:
Post a Comment