How can a system with absolute command and control of government mechanism by one sole authority assisted by a few select sycophants be called very democratic and unique in nature? The election of the first hereditary monarch Ugyen Wangchuk in 1907 was not done according to the choice and wishes of the Bhutanese people but was installed by the builders of the British Empire, few clergy and the nobility to suit their vested interest as they feared hostility under the Shabdrung system. Leo E. Rose, the American political scientist and scholar of Himalayan States, writes in "The Politics of Bhutan" (Cornell University Press, 1977) ......... the monarchy came first and the theocratic rationalisations for the system were "appended" there after. The Wangchuk dynasty lacked the traditional, ideological legitimisation and has been so crucial to the survival of Monarchies" in Nepal and Thailand.
Despite its disadvantages of being landlocked and Indo-centric, the prospects for socio-economic development in Bhutan are good in comparison to other countries in the regions and over a period of three decades Bhutan has indeed taken a quantum leap in the development sectors. Bhutan however, does not have a genuinely merit based, corruption-free and result oriented government and administrative system. There is no equal opportunity in business as well as in the government service.
D.N.S. Dhakal, a former official in the Ministry of Trade and Industry in Thimphu; and now in exile wrote the following accounts of business partiality in the article. "Economic Blueprint for a south Asian Dragon" .......... "The policies on privatisation or export promotion are seen as ways of transferring ownership of public resources to members of the Thimphu elite. The foremost example is the case of the Gedu Plywood Project, built in 1980s at Nu 145 million with grants from the UNDP and soft term loans from the Kuwait International Development Fund. This project has now been sold to Yab ugyen Dorji father-in-law of the king, at discount of 80 percent of the book value. The initial share value of the project was Nu 1000, but was bought by the Yab (yab = father-in-law in Dzongkha) at Nu 198, with the entire foreign exchange burden to be borne by the Bhutan Government.
Another instance was the 'secret' auction bid on the duty free business owned and operated until 1991 by the Ministry of Finance. The Yab submitted three tender offers to the ministry valued at Nu. 1.1, 3.0, and 4.0 million while others were discouraged even a bid by government officials. Sonam Wangmo, owner of Yu-Druk Travel Agency, withdrew Nu 1.5 million bid, but found to her surprise that the Yab won the auction on payment of a royalty less than her bid.
More recent mischief of Yab Ugyen Dorji has been his capture of a contract for felling the young forests plantations on the southern slopes of the Siwalik foot-hills and in the plains near the Indian border. The contract, which is expected to fetch monopoly profit in millions of Ngultrums to the Yab, goes against an earlier decision of the 69th National Assembly, held in November 1989, to create a two kilometre wide green belt along the Bhutan-India border.
The Yab had a medium-sized retail business before the marriages of his daughters to the king. From retail merchant to an economic power within less than half a decade was a journey made by riding roughshod over rules and regulations. The Yab's skills in manipulating government’s policy are reflected in his acquisition of Wangdiphodrang Timber Saw mill owned until 1990 by Kabji Penjor, a prominent citizen from Thimphu district. After the forest department denied timber for the saw mill, he sold his business to the Yab. immediately thereafter, timber supply was resumed. The Yab's unfair business practices are also affecting members of the royal family who were once active in mining, trading and manufacturing. The king's aunts Ashi Choki, Ashi Deki, and Ashi Pema have all withdrawn from big business in order to avoid clashes with the Yab and his associates, who today form a powerful clique.
The Bhutanese Foreign Minister (Dawa Tshering) had asked the Tshougdu (National Assembly) not to be confused with the anti-national's campaigns against dress, language, custom and religion. They had "a much more deep-seated, long term objective", which was "the introduction of multi-party democracy ... a highly lethal one for the Bhutanese monarchy."
Present King’s father Jigme or Father-King says that he does, ultimately, when he thinks the time is right, which to relinquish the heavy burden of monarchy. In dozens of interviews, he has said in almost identical words, "I do not think that monarchy is the best form of government. I would not oppose democracy as long as I am fully confident that the political changes are for the greater good of our people". Between a king who says he wants democracy, but not now, and a foreign minister who says never to a multi-party democracy clearly shows that the bureaucrats themselves are confused about the real fruits and substance of multi-party democracy. Father-King himself seems to be confused between monarchy and democracy and issues conflicting statements. He sometimes says that monarchy is bad but Bhutan is not ready for democracy and at times says something different. He told Christopher Thomas of the 'Times of London in April 1994'........ "But Bhutan has a very democratic monarchy. Most people think a country with a monarchy is backward and feudal. But Bhutan is more democratic than most democratic countries and definitely more democratic than any democratic third world country".
"The reality is elsewhere. Bhutanese polity is today balanced like a house of cards. A nudge of slight breeze and it could collapse all around king Jigme, and it will be more than the tragedy of one man. It will be the collapse of a polity that has much going for it" writes Kanak Mani Dixit.
No doubt, Bhutan has among the best socio-economic indicators in South Asia, finely developing health and education programmes and an administration known for its potentiality and speedy action. But none of the benefits will accrue in the long term if new found political desires are suppressed rather than channelled. How-so-ever safe, sanitised and "democratic" Father-King Jigme's system might be he cannot now escape being sucked into the spiral. He must fashion a system that can maintain today's development momentum while providing more political space for his subjects.
