NationStates Jolt Archive

On March 24 (yesterday), Bhutan had its first ever democratic elections. Democracy was imposed by the King; there was no pro-democracy pressure by the people.


Bhutan's soon-to-be governing party pledged Tuesday to follow the policies of the absolute monarchy it is replacing, after it won a landslide in this once-reclusive Himalayan kingdom's first parliamentary elections.

So it goes in Bhutan, possibly the first country in history where a king had to convince his people that democracy was a good idea.

"I don't think we'll have a different policy on any issue at this point," said Yeshey Zimba, one of the newly elected lawmakers from the Druk Phuensum Tshogpa, or Bhutan Peace and Prosperity Party, which won 44 of 47 seats in the new National Assembly.

"The past has been very wonderful and successful," he told reporters in Thimphu. "We will be guided by the past, the good policies His Majesty has provided us."

That's not surprising. In the weeks before the vote, many Bhutanese, the candidates among them, wondered aloud why they even needed an election in a country that had prospered under royal rule. Its average annual of income of US$1,400 (€908) was twice that of neighboring India's, and nearly all its people had access to schools and hospitals — a rare achievement in this corner of the world.

Such success contrasts sharply with South Asian countries like Nepal and Bangladesh, which often seem to be case studies in democracy gone wrong — a fact that left many here dreading the franchise.

But the royal family said it was better to make the transition during a time of stability and prosperity than wait for change forced by circumstances, and the Bhutanese responded — turnout in Monday's vote was just shy of 80 percent.

On Tuesday, many here were hard pressed to explain why the Druk Phuensum Tshogpa trounced its only rival, the People's Democratic Party.

While the Druk Phuensum Tshogpa was considered the more royalist of the two parties, both hewed closely to the king's vision of Bhutan, pledging to follow the royal idea of Gross National Happiness, an all-encompassing political philosophy that seeks to balance material progress with spiritual well-being.

The new government is expected to be sworn in and take power in the next month or two, but no date has been set. The king, 28-year-old Jigme Keshar Namgyal Wangchuck, will remain head of state and likely retain much influence.

Bhutan's monarchy, which only opened the country to the outside world in the early 1960s, has made a point of preserving Bhutanese culture, saying it was the only way the tiny country of about 600,000 people could survive as every other Himalayan Buddhist kingdom — places like Sikkim and Tibet — was swallowed by foreign powers and swamped by outsiders.

It banned television and the Internet until 1999 and still mandates that people work in their traditional dress — checkered knee-length robes for men, silk jackets and wraparound skirts for women.

The monarchy also said it needed to protect Bhutanese culture by driving out more than 100,000 ethnic Nepalis — a Hindu minority concentrated in southern Bhutan — in the early 1990s. Most now live in refugee camps in Nepal and Bhutan refuses to take them back.

Even with tens of thousands of other ethnic Nepalis still in Bhutan, candidates were barred from speaking about matters of security, citizenship — meaning the refugees — or the royal family.


(link (http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/03/25/asia/AS-POL-Bhutan-Elections.php#))

A country in which an absolute monarch imposes democracy on his reluctant subjects... Interesting country, Bhutan. :)

http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/2423/tbdmi6.jpg
King Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuck (incidentally the world's youngest head of State)

http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/2655/tbd2ja1.jpg http://img178.imageshack.us/img178/5366/tbd3wc4.jpg
Jigme Thinley, winner of the election, will become Prime Minister.

More information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jigme_Thinley
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Druk_Phuensum_Tshogpa
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhutanese_general_election%2C_2008
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jigme_Khesar_Namgyal_Wangchuck
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhutan

As much as I applaud this, I have to take an issue with the last sentence...

Even with tens of thousands of other ethnic Nepalis still in Bhutan, candidates were barred from speaking about matters of security, citizenship — meaning the refugees — or the royal family.

Notice the bolded part.

I am glad that this was done peacefully, do not mistake that, but to bar candidates from speaking about the bolded does say that some are worried about what would happen in the nation if this was talked about.

Why can't england be like that?

A country in which an absolute monarch imposes democracy on his reluctant subjects... Interesting country, Bhutan. :)

The Netherlands did the opposite a few centuries ago: move from republic to constitutional monarchy ;)

The Netherlands did the opposite a few centuries ago: move from republic to constitutional monarchy ;)

Smart move.

I guess this is a move to secure his power, if there is a democracy people will be even less prone to revolt. And the parliament will probably not have that much to say (security, refugees and the monarchy for instance)
Not that I think democracy for Bhutan is a bad thing, I guess the people of Bhutan already had it pretty good compared to their neighbors and this will probably not hurt them, it might even improve their lives (although I think at least in the short run this won't change much)

Smart move.

Depends, really, if you ask me. Mostly on the local political climate.

In any case, the barring of certain subjects is likely temporary, and mostly intended to squelch some people's lingering fears regarding political destabilization.

That's freakin awesome!

The Netherlands did the opposite a few centuries ago: move from republic to constitutional monarchy ;)

Smart move.
If I remember rightly, the individual provinces of the Dutch Republic were monarchies anyway.

If I remember rightly, the individual provinces of the Dutch Republic were monarchies anyway.

Maybe so, but there was not a central monarchy before that time, and you'd likely think it would go the opposite way, wouldn't you? The republic forcing a legal dissolution of the individual monarchies and re-making the whole country in a republican image, not the monarchies dissolving the republic and creating it anew as a central, supreme monarchy, backed with a constitution.

I personally believe that in such instances, what is happening is that peoples living in the country in question have a craving for stability which the republic is unable or unwilling to satisfy, and the people, therefore, simply remove it in response and create a new government which is likely more able and willing in all to give them what has been denied them by the previous administration.

While I would never argue that democracy is an inevitable progression of governance, because it isn't, prudent leaders or educated populaces are increasingly recognizing the tangible benefits that this system stands to provide, so long as the system is imposed internally, and not by external factors.

Maybe so, but there was not a central monarchy before that time, and you'd likely think it would go the opposite way, wouldn't you? The republic forcing a legal dissolution of the individual monarchies and re-making the whole country in a republican image, not the monarchies dissolving the republic and creating it anew as a central, supreme monarchy, backed with a constitution.
No, not really. The government of the Dutch Republic was made of and derived its authority from the governments of the individual provinces, and the government that replaced it after Napoleon was not absolute.

I personally believe that in such instances, what is happening is that peoples living in the country in question have a craving for stability which the republic is unable or unwilling to satisfy, and the people, therefore, simply remove it in response and create a new government which is likely more able and willing in all to give them what it is they want.
The Dutch Republic was dissolved by Napoleon, not by its people.

I am glad that this was done peacefully, do not mistake that, but to bar candidates from speaking about the bolded does say that some are worried about what would happen in the nation if this was talked about.

True. Note that citizens have reportedly expressed concern about democracy potentially being divisive. These people have just voted for the first time of their lives, many of them (it seems) reluctantly. They may not have been happy if controversial issues were brought out into the open.

The Netherlands did the opposite a few centuries ago: move from republic to constitutional monarchy ;)

The Dutch are even stranger than the Bhutanese. :P

I guess this is a move to secure his power, if there is a democracy people will be even less prone to revolt.

From what I gather, most Bhutanese people are fiercely loyal to the King, so a revolt would be very unlikely.

What I don't get is why the King bothered. If they're happy why change things? If it ain't broke...

I seem to remember that both political parties have said that this (the elections) isn't what they wanted... They both seemed to be happy enough in advisory capacity to the monarchy.

If I remember rightly, the individual provinces of the Dutch Republic were monarchies anyway.No, they weren't. Wouldn't be much of a republic, really, if that were the case. And even before it became a republic, the best we had at province level were counts and bishops and such.

What I don't get is why the King bothered. If they're happy why change things? If it ain't broke...

That's a good question. The idea didn't actually come from the current king. It came from his father (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jigme_Singye_Wangchuck), who ruled for over three decades as an absolute monarch, then suddenly announced: "Right! We're going to be a democracy now. Here's the new Constitution. I hereby abdicate, and let my son muddle his way through the remaining details."

The IHT article suggests that the King felt democracy would come one day anyway, and that it was better to introduce it during a period of peace and stability. Which is slightly odd, but not entirely illogical, I suppose. Maybe he had Nepal in mind.

yet again Bhutan kicks globalisation in the goolies

Bhutan Peace and Prosperity Party

I would of preferred the poverty and Chinese satellite party :p

That's a good question. The idea didn't actually come from the current king. It came from his father (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jigme_Singye_Wangchuck), who ruled for over three decades as an absolute monarch, then suddenly announced: "Right! We're going to be a democracy now. Here's the new Constitution. I hereby abdicate, and let my son muddle his way through the remaining details."

The IHT article suggests that the King felt democracy would come one day anyway, and that it was better to introduce it during a period of peace and stability. Which is slightly odd, but not entirely illogical, I suppose. Maybe he had Nepal in mind.

Gotta love abdication. He obviously doesn't like his son!!!!

No, they weren't. Wouldn't be much of a republic, really, if that were the case. And even before it became a republic, the best we had at province level were counts and bishops and such.
I was fairly sure that the government, while technically republican, was in the control of one de facto monarchical family.

I was fairly sure that the government, while technically republican, was in the control of one de facto monarchical family.
No, not really. The Orange family made repeated attempts at consolidating control, but was not particularly successful.

I've always found Bhutan fascinating. Definitely off the beaten path, that country is, but in a good way.

This got me thinking though....particularly this line:

Such success contrasts sharply with South Asian countries like Nepal and Bangladesh, which often seem to be case studies in democracy gone wrong — a fact that left many here dreading the franchise.

Everyone (particularly Westerners) always touts the virtues of democracy, typically meaning Western-style democracy. But sometimes I do find myself wondering if Western-style democracy really is suited for the rest of the world.

Before anyone misinterprets what I'm saying, I'm not at all thinking that non-Western nations aren't capable of forming a democracy. Nor am I suggesting that dictatorships or totalitarian regimes that abuse their people should be tolerated. But we've seen countless examples of where attempts at imposing Western-style democracy on non-Western nations have gone horribly awry. Nepal and Bangladesh are good examples. So is Iraq.

While I admire the king of Bhutan for opening up his country's political system and relinquishing some of his power, the fact that his own people weren't even asking for it, didn't want it, and even feared it a bit made me pause. So, should we (meaning Western nations) stop touting the virtues of our concept of democracy so heavily on other nations, and let them figure out for themselves how best to reach a fairer form of governance?

From what I gather, most Bhutanese people are fiercely loyal to the King, so a revolt would be very unlikely.

I see no real other reason why he would do that. Maybe he was afraid the americans would otherwise bring democracy to bhutan :p. And it's not like it's a total constitutional monarchy now, the government has limited power, one party was lead by a friend of the monarch, the other by his uncle.

Everyone (particularly Westerners) always touts the virtues of democracy, typically meaning Western-style democracy. But sometimes I do find myself wondering if Western-style democracy really is suited for the rest of the world.

Before anyone misinterprets what I'm saying, I'm not at all thinking that non-Western nations aren't capable of forming a democracy. Nor am I suggesting that dictatorships or totalitarian regimes that abuse their people should be tolerated. But we've seen countless examples of where attempts at imposing Western-style democracy on non-Western nations have gone horribly awry. Nepal and Bangladesh are good examples. So is Iraq.

While I admire the king of Bhutan for opening up his country's political system and relinquishing some of his power, the fact that his own people weren't even asking for it, didn't want it, and even feared it a bit made me pause. So, should we (meaning Western nations) stop touting the virtues of our concept of democracy so heavily on other nations, and let them figure out for themselves how best to reach a fairer form of governance?

In a way Bhutan was already very 'democratic', afaik (and tbh, like most people in the west I know very little about Bhutan) the monarch had almost full popular support and high approval ratings, not many heads of state can say that?
I think that realistically the best we can hope for is a government which has great support from the population and which doesn't oppress minorities (I'm not sure if the last one can be said about Bhutan regarding the Nepalese...).

Personally I would prefer a radical democracy, but if the people of Bhutan 'elect' a monarch I don't have problems with that. Maybe it might have been better to hold a referendum about absolute of constitutional monarchy. (assuming most Bhutanese are well informed, something I doubt.)

True. Note that citizens have reportedly expressed concern about democracy potentially being divisive. These people have just voted for the first time of their lives, many of them (it seems) reluctantly. They may not have been happy if controversial issues were brought out into the open.
The victims of the "citizenship" issue might have been though.

Human Rights Watch on Bhutan (http://hrw.org/doc/?t=asia&c=bhutan)

Let freedum reign, even when no ones paticularly interested :p

I've always had a fondness for Bhutan.

"National happiness is more important than GNP" - King Jigme Singye Wangchuck of Bhutan

Enough said...

However I can understand why the people of Bhutan are concerned about the elections. Given the violence in Kenya following their election, and the spate of national woe and wailing following dubious electroal stalemates elsewhere, it's pretty easy to see why they feel the way they do. I wouldn't have wanted it either. We shall in the long term if it's been for the good or not, but this has beena long term project and well thought our (unlike other missiosn to bring "freedom and democracy") so I'm more optimistic than I might otherwise be, especially since this wasn't some half baked street protest but a considered policy from the King himself...

I just can't help thinking of the whole "if it ain't broke..." point though

What're we down to now...Saudi, Brunei, Qatar, Bahrain, Tonga, Swaziland,...

These monarchies are dropping like flies.

On March 24 (yesterday), Bhutan had its first ever democratic elections. Democracy was imposed by the King; there was no pro-democracy pressure by the people.



(link (http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/03/25/asia/AS-POL-Bhutan-Elections.php#))

A country in which an absolute monarch imposes democracy on his reluctant subjects... Interesting country, Bhutan. :)

http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/2423/tbdmi6.jpg
King Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuck (incidentally the world's youngest head of State)

http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/2655/tbd2ja1.jpg http://img178.imageshack.us/img178/5366/tbd3wc4.jpg
Jigme Thinley, winner of the election, will become Prime Minister.

More information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jigme_Thinley
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Druk_Phuensum_Tshogpa
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhutanese_general_election%2C_2008
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jigme_Khesar_Namgyal_Wangchuck
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhutan

Hope to God(s) it lasts. Democracy tends to fail in countries lacking a well-developed economy

I've always had a fondness for Bhutan.

"National happiness is more important than GNP" - King Jigme Singye Wangchuck of Bhutan

Enough said...
Evidently it's not enough, if you'd like to read the report on the human rights situation there I posted right above you.

I love this, if I ever want to set up a dictatorial regime I'll just declare "gross national happiness" my motto and most of the planet will think that's kinda cute and let me get away with anything I want.

I actually feel sorta weird in the pit of my stomach after hearing this. I mean, if the Monarchs in the past have always been doing such a good job, and genuinely cared for their subjects' happiness to such a degree... I think I side with the commoners of Bhutan on the whole change thing. They've had time to convert over to a democracy, of course, but by the looks of things they still weren't ready. I have a feeling that modernization is going to have some pretty negative effects on the country in the long-run. What with TVs and possibly computers in the eventual future...

I've always loved Bhutan, I was planning on going on a trip there! You used to have to pay to enter the country, and pay per day spent there, since they don't allow foreigners inside regularly. I wonder if this will affect the rules on visiting the country at all?

Well, there goes the world's only Buddhist Monarchy! I just hope international pressure didn't cause this to happen.


((Although the fact that they dispelled on the Nepalese that migrated there, albeit not all that forcibly, isn't too great. Though thats probably why they have the laws against immigration, to keep stuff like that from happening. How long have the Nepalese been there anyways?))

((Although the fact that they dispelled on the Nepalese that migrated there, albeit not all that forcibly, isn't too great. Though thats probably why they have the laws against immigration, to keep stuff like that from happening. How long have the Nepalese been there anyways?))
It's directly tied in with this cultural conservatism that is the base of the "GNH" idea. We're Bhutan, the new and the foreign is scary and evil, and the Nepalese are the most obvious foreign thing around here. So they get forced to sign papers renouncing their homes and land, they get denied identification and therefore the right to work and vote (funny how that counts as democracy now), their kids get no access to education or healthcare and so on and so forth. It's ethnic cleansing, pure and simple.

But Bhutan is just too cute to be angry about, or something. So let's all congratulate the king, who also thinks foreign television and the like should be outlawed and everyone is required by law to wear traditional dresses (if someone does that in an Islamic country, we call them fundamentalist nutjobs...).

The first reports of Nepalese people in Bhutan was in the 17th century, they've been moving across the borders in the area eversince. The Lhotshampa communities for example are mainly descended from people who came in the 19th century. Others were called in in the 1940s, others moved more recently.

None of which gives anyone the right to force these people into massive refugee camps or try to exterminate their culture.

I'm not anti-Bhutan, I think there are a lot worse governments out there. But I find it baffling how a bit of nice rhetoric can make people forget all about the oppressive and abusive side to this state.

Everyone (particularly Westerners) always touts the virtues of democracy, typically meaning Western-style democracy. But sometimes I do find myself wondering if Western-style democracy really is suited for the rest of the world.

Before anyone misinterprets what I'm saying, I'm not at all thinking that non-Western nations aren't capable of forming a democracy. Nor am I suggesting that dictatorships or totalitarian regimes that abuse their people should be tolerated. But we've seen countless examples of where attempts at imposing Western-style democracy on non-Western nations have gone horribly awry. Nepal and Bangladesh are good examples. So is Iraq.

While I admire the king of Bhutan for opening up his country's political system and relinquishing some of his power, the fact that his own people weren't even asking for it, didn't want it, and even feared it a bit made me pause. So, should we (meaning Western nations) stop touting the virtues of our concept of democracy so heavily on other nations, and let them figure out for themselves how best to reach a fairer form of governance?

I would tend to agree with you, cautiously. There are a number of human rights which should be considered universal. Democracy, in the Western sense, is not necessarily one of them. There have been other examples of countries where most people have been wary or hostile to the idea of democracy, prefering traditional forms of government. For the sake of tradition, or for the sake of stability. Or even because they trusted a traditional government to respect their rights more than an elected one.

The victims of the "citizenship" issue might have been though.

Human Rights Watch on Bhutan (http://hrw.org/doc/?t=asia&c=bhutan)

Indeed.

I'm not sure to what extent the Bhutanese have access to foreign media which may report on that issue.

What're we down to now...Saudi, Brunei, Qatar, Bahrain, Tonga, Swaziland,...

These monarchies are dropping like flies.

Tonga is theoretically supposed to become more of a democracy this year, due to increasingly insistant popular demand (including riots in 2006). That is, if I recall correctly, the next parliament should have a majority of elected representatives, instead of a ridiculously small minority as is presently the case.

I'm not anti-Bhutan, I think there are a lot worse governments out there. But I find it baffling how a bit of nice rhetoric can make people forget all about the oppressive and abusive side to this state.

Obviously, this is because you overlook just how damn cute Bhutan is! Though in all seriousness, I think those who came in the 1940s should have just been kicked out of Bhutan in the 1940s. They shouldn't have given them so long for that large group to settle there.

I'm not anti-Bhutan, I think there are a lot worse governments out there. But I find it baffling how a bit of nice rhetoric can make people forget all about the oppressive and abusive side to this state.

Because, unfortunately, not much information seems to come out of Bhutan. They keep very much to themselves, have virtually no foreign policy, so the outside world and the international media tend not to be interested to what they're doing to their main ethnic minority.

Interesting how a guy with absolute power who just got it because he was born lucky not only reforms his country, but forcibly imposes democracy and later abdicates. People with absolute power are always evil and corrupt as this clearly shows.

I read the National Geographic and Smithsonian articles about this. He seems to have done it as a buffer against China and India geopolitically. They'd get more international support in a conflict as a democracy.

I wonder how this experiment is going to turn out further down the road. I'm thinking that younger generations will prolly start to embrace the idea of "democracy", even though Bhutan will likely linger as a one-party state for some time.

Bhu who?

Bhu who?

I'd expect that from you.

Same thing happened in Spain after the death of Franco. After Franco's death King Carlos I swept in and turned it into a democracy. Having monarchs want to set up a democracy isn't a new thing.

I'd expect that from you.

Well, I was expecting someone to make a corny joke, but you seemed to have resisted the urge...

I wonder how this experiment is going to turn out further down the road. I'm thinking that younger generations will prolly start to embrace the idea of "democracy", even though Bhutan will likely linger as a one-party state for some time.

The definition of a one-party state is, generally, a state in which only one party is legal. That's not the case for Bhutan.

The worrying thing here is that if the people were given democracy by force, will they later reject it?

The worrying thing here is that if the people were given democracy by force, will they later reject it?

Not if they haven't got the option of voting for a party that stands against democracy.