Here begins the campaign!

A television reporter asked an old woman in eastern Bhutan about her feelings about candidates of different political parties swarming like bees in her village. Taken aback, lost for words, the woman replied, in a sing-song tone: “Aai taa yong khey na na (We are getting scared).”

In another incident, a smartly dressed man in his thirties, probably a political candidate, visited people of a remote hamlet in southern Bhutan, accompanied by gaggle of party workers. He introduced himself first, and with an aura of preeminence, declared: “Teme haru koh ghar jalai dintsho moi ley (I will burn down your houses).”

The people listening to him were baffled, wondering why this man wants to destroy their old dilapidated huts. It’s only after a few conversations back and forth that people in the village realized he meant was “electrifying their homes”.

Call it sheer naivety or height of miscommunication, this is what is happening in some rural places across the country. Politicking and campaign have begun in earnest. And some of our rural folks are getting visitors who are almost alien to them.

For the time being, it’s candidates and parties that are in a rush against time – in a rush to entice maximum hearts and in a rush to woo maximum voters. All that they know is that they have limited time at their disposal.

The contestants are aware as well and even party presidents are leaving no stone unturned to cover as much districts as they can. Candidates are touring their constituencies, travelling to places that they have never been so far, and attending the common forum debates when not traveling.

While the good and bad aspects of politicking cannot be ruled out, what is pivotal here is in maintaining political decency. The word doing the round is that party workers are going all out to woo voters, and in so doing, they are getting carried away. Such politics of ‘either you are with us or against us’ can spell disharmony in a small society of ours.

We are a young democracy, grappling with new ideas and political process. Politics is an inevitable part of the democratic process. We can’t help it. But what we can, is how we choose to conduct ourselves in politics, adhering to the highest ethical standards. And the onus of keeping politics clean falls on the parties, candidates, election officials and regulators, and even voters themselves.

Most importantly, what we should keep in mind is the larger picture – democracy. At the end, all of us must strive to build a strong foundation for democracy, and ensure that it can be sustained through generations to come. And it would be determined by how each one of us are playing our roles today – as candidates, party workers, and voters. That’s what it matters!

Feigned desire doesn’t suffice

Perhaps, it may sound clichéd to reiterate the pivotal role of media in a democracy.

Ask any Tom, Dick and Harry to deliberate on media and democracy, many would end up drawing a nexus between the two – how one is important for the success or fruition of another; unfortunately without much deeper understanding of the real correlation. Piteous, but true in all aspect.

Seriously, we need to do more than sticking to this mere rhetoric or exhortation if we are serious, as we show to be, towards media development in the country. Rhetoric and feigned desire will not help the country’s indisposed media.

What is apparent now is media, especially the private ones, have their necks deep under water and are fighting the arduous battle waged against them – from government ministries and agencies to media’s own regulatory body, the Bhutan InfoComm and Media Authority (BICMA).

Notwithstanding, for a change, it was affirming to hear the Vice President of the People’s Democratic Party Damcho Dorji, at the second political parties’ debate for the 2013 elections Friday, calling for pragmatic efforts from the government to support the private media and not just lip service, and how existence of media, that are majorly government-owned, could spell doom for country’s democracy in the future.

Indubitably, such a scenario may not materialize at the moment but we cannot rule out such possibility either.

The fact of the matter is that it’s not a good time for most media houses in the country. While the government has severed its advertisement budget on one side, BICMA, which is supposed to be a media regulatory body, on the other is bent on stifling the already sick private media houses.

Perhaps, ignorant of how media functions in a society, BICMA’s present role has revolved around handing over authoritative and high-handed letters to media in Bhutan. While also evoking doubts whether it is abreast of the present media scenario, it is also perhaps one of the only media organizations that has never have had close interaction with the media hitherto. And we don’t see it happening any sooner either.

Even some media professionals, the new as well as the old, are oblivious as well on how BICMA carries out its responsibilities; duties as an organization which is supposed to facilitate the media by delving into their problem, as an organization which is supposed to strengthen the fourth arm of the government.

It’ just the contrary that is happening now. And for the time being, we could only contemplate what the first Chief-Editor of Bhutan Times wrote in its editorial almost six years back, on May 20, 2007, that, “…….That if there is anyone who will kill media in Bhutan, it will be BICMA”.

Women and politics

It may not be robust, but we are at least witnessing developments taking place in existing and new political parties that have come up to contest in the next elections, albeit at a snail’s pace.

Two political parties from the already existing ones have surfaced up recently, promising better choices to the people and with different ideologies. And there is also a rumor of the fifth party in the making.

While the old parties are busy approaching its former candidates, strategizing their slogan, logo and ideologies amidst the worry of running out of time to settle old party dues; new parties are devising ways to have more women representation in their party.

But will more women come forth? The stance of Bhutanese women in politics would definitely be something to witness as we build up to the 2013 elections.

How many of them have been approached by political parties as of now? How many of them are mulling over resigning from work or taking a break from home? And how many actually believe that they can make a change?

The women voters’ turnout was exemplary in the last election, with the number exceeding that of the male voters. But the same wasn’t the case when it was about women contesting election. They were simply uninterested or shied away.

Similar thing is happening even today. For instance, four out of six former female candidates of PDP have opted to stay away from politics.

Their responsibilities as homemaker and having to look after the family, calling politics as a male-dominated arena and personal issues were cited as reasons for their refusal to enter politics.

It seems the number of females venturing into politics won’t change. We have today a combined 14% women representation in the parliament and 0.1% women representation in the local government.

Against this backdrop, there are also debates rife whether gender quotas should be introduced to bring about proportionate representation of women in the government.  Whether Bhutan should have a quota system introduced through national legislation or through political parties?

No denying, quota rule has helped increase women’s representation in the parliament. But is a quota system in Bhutan absolutely necessary? And what do we want to have eventually- quality representation or quantity representation?

We proclaim that there is no discrimination against women. We proclaim that the stereotypical attitude against women has not obstructed them from being elected in politics. But this is far from being true.

A majority still has this belief even today that a man makes a better politician than a woman. We have facilitated women’s entry into politics, but sadly we continue to have this same standpoint.  [June 3,  2012]

Battling it out in social media

The ruling party, Druk Phuensum Tshogpa, pitches its leadership with a tweet: “The rise of Jigmi Y Thinley was not an accident or an anomaly, or even a mystery…” It shares a link to a news profile article which almost edifies the prime minister after he led the DPT to the historic win of the 2008 elections.

The opposition party, People’s Democratic Party, explains its ideology on twitter: “To build TRUST between the center and the districts for cooperation in developmental activities & communication.”

Druk Nyamrup Tshogpa promotes its president by quoting her. “Equity and sustainability has always been close to my heart even when I design a simplest of the projects – Aum President Dorji Choden,” the tweet reads.

The president of Druk Chirwang Tshogpa, Lily Wangchuk, explains how she got her leadership aspirations and tweets: “My mother taught me to stand up for myself and to stand up for those who can’t do it on their own.”

A relieved Bhutan Kuen-Nyam Party tweets: “Finally secured a candidate to contest from Nanong-Shumar constituency.”

This is the Bhutanese political parties in the social media. Twitter and Facebook have become virtual battlegrounds. The parties are literally battling it out and it is only intensifying with the elections drawing nearer.

It’s all there to see – parties advocating its beliefs and ideologies, introducing candidates, updating news, highlighting issues, and selling its magic formulae to lead the country to a new era of peace and prosperity. The race is on. The Facebook accounts of political parties are in to get as many friends as possible while the customized party pages are advocating readers to ‘like’ each and every post the party makes. Twitter accounts are in the fight to get maximum followers.

Making it all the more interesting is the almost round-the-clock presence of the Chief Election Commissioner, Dasho Kunzang Wangdi, on social media. So far, his presence has been very amicable – interacting, educating, and informing people about all issues related to elections. He seems to enjoy himself in the virtual space as he seems to know almost all the regular twitter users and comfortably jokes even with anonymous account holders, all of whom gives him his due.

While we know that the social media will indubitably play a major role in the upcoming elections, many quarters have raised concern over the undue influence the anonymous people on social media may yield. In 2008, the controversial website, www.bhutantimes.com, was unreasonably harsh on the PDP and one person by the name of ‘commonman’ religiously dedicated himself to tarnish the image of PDP leadership. After five years, we know that nothing could be done about it.

Today, the social media is much more advanced than in 2008. We are also seeing a lot of anonymous people coming up on social media with some crossing the line of sanity while attacking politicians and political parties. Compared to 2008, it is very likely that we will see many more ‘commonman’ in these elections. This is nothing less than disturbing.

As such, it is vital how we perceive social media. We know it is an important tool. We know it is effective. We know we cannot ignore it. We also know it is very difficult to monitor it. Therefore, it is important to be wary of the negative influences it can cast.     

Did we learn?

As we are about to hit to the polls once again, after almost four-and-a-half-year later, it’s also time to contemplate our odyssey – the tryst with elections and democracy – so far.

The start hasn’t been smooth given some confusion in the beginning or call it ‘our naivety’, but we have managed to emerge out successful. More than a debacle, it has been a success story, at least we can now brag about it so.

An enriching experience altogether, but there were also plenty of lessons to be learned? Have we done so? Have we metamorphosed for the better or worse? And are we better now compared to what we were in 2008? These are questions we need to ask ourselves, timely as we gear up for another elections.

Indubitably, there were many lessons. Perhaps, that was also the first time we were tested. And the first time, we were exhibited how politics can be debauched or exposed to the other side of politics. We saw it happening then. We will see it happening now as well.

For instance in 2008, prior to the elections, some villages stand divided because of politics. A village which supported one party was indifferent to the other neighboring village if the latter supported another party. The rural folks in these villages who had coexisted in harmony and camaraderie since ages were no longer in talking terms. The negative remnants of the first elections are perhaps apparent even today.

We saw politics creating real rift even in homes as well, relatives becoming bitter enemies and the bad side of politics seemingly seeping into the very family bonds.

Somewhere in January 2008, before the elections, a woman in Shershong, Gelephu, was reportedly man-handled by her husband, a People’s Democratic Party (PDP) supporter after she was found attending a Druk Phuensum Tshogpa (DPT) meeting. The wife was literally dragged out of the meeting hall by her husband.

Similarly, there were such similar reports sprouting up in other places as well. In Trashiyangtse, there were allegations that four young women who were PDP supporters were assaulted on their way home by DPT supporters.

If that wasn’t enough then, there were the two parties themselves so much engrossed into mudslinging, allegations and counter allegations. They were themselves casting aspersions at each other. Dirty outpourings from the two parties continued unabatedly till the elections were over. Further, party workers in rural areas were seen capitalizing on certain issues just to win votes.

We have seen it all – politics unsparing even poor individuals, families, villages and communities- in 2008 when there were just two parties. We have five parties this time and we cannot envision the predicament if the same occurrences are to occur again. But again, did we learn then?

 

 

 

 

The rule of law

Call it their unfaltering faith, ignorance or sheer naivety, a group of people seeking leniency on behalf of those convicted in the Gyelpozhing land allotment case is a manifestation of how we fail to understand the rule of law. In fact, this reflects our perception, attitude, and understanding of how the law operates in the country.

This is not the first time though that a particular interest group has pulled off such a show. After a bruising lost in 2008 elections, a multitude of People Democratic Party (PDP) supporters even petitioned the King to give up democracy and restore monarchy. Of course, we must give them the benefit of doubt that this move was triggered by their genuine concern for the greater good of the country. Or perhaps, the shock of the loss.

However, as far as the right to do so is concerned, every individual can afford to exhaust all possible means to seek justice for themselves and for others. No questioning about that fundamental right. The problem arises when we tend to overlook the significance of the rule of law, and make concerted efforts to sidestep it.

In the Gyelpozhing case, after a month-long trial, the Mongar court gave its verdict. As is the course of law, the accused had 10 days to appeal to the High Court, which a few of them have already done.

That’s the rule of law. Courts pass judgments and those not happy with it can always appeal to an appellate court. This is how it works. This is how the legal procedures are crafted and put to practice.

Now add to this picture a group of people trying to petition the Supreme Court to undo the decision made by the lower court. Firstly, it is interesting to know their motivation for doing so. Secondly, it only goes to show that they do not understand the nuances of law. Thirdly, interested parties or groups lobbying for the accused must realize this isn’t at all the legitimate way to go about things. Such bargaining is unnecessary and totally unreasonable.

Such an endeavor of certain section of our society at times only enlarges our inability to accept the hard realities of life. We fail to understand that the essence of democracy is the rule of law. We can’t bypass it or seek an easier way out.

A lesson we can take home from these experiences is that there is pressing need to educate our citizens on the importance of the rule of law, democratic rights and freedoms and certain limitations that we must be willing to compromise with. In the end, if we want democracy to flourish, we must at all times value and respect the rule of law.

Schools and institutes – No trespassing

The recent admonition from the Election Commission of Bhutan (ECB) advising political parties to keep away from school and institutes to meet students has left many wondering the rationale behind the move and whether the benefits outweigh the drawbacks as are purported to be.

While the Commission has maintained that a large number of parties and candidates could lead to ‘undue politicization’ in schools, some argue that it’s just unnecessary apprehension. Few can’t help asking why it was a concern for the education ministry when political parties visiting schools and institutions help in educating the students on politics and democracy. Students stand to benefit more interacting directly with the parties.

However, this has indubitably raised question of our misconception about politics. We still view politics as it’s happening in some neighboring countries as dirty, corrupt and debauched, and thus draw a parallel perception. We fear that politicking in schools would be counterproductive and that it would plant poison in young minds.

The reasons behind barring political parties into school are understandable, but what about those students who are in colleges and tertiary institutes and are above 18 years and eligible to vote? The fact that the majority of our voters comprise the youth would mean depriving them of the electoral education that allows them to make informed choices.

Around the world, many premier institutes are political in nature. Political parties visit colleges and universities and some even host prominent politicians for talks and discussion. Rather than politicizing, such programs make eligible voters more abreast and prepare them to make their own decisions.

To put it simply, eligible voters in schools and institutes have the right to have access to the right information about parties. This will only help them make informed decisions. What use would it really be even if eligible young voters go and vote if they don’t have a sound electoral education? Though the Commission might have covered schools under its voters’ education and information program, what about awareness of the electoral education on parties, candidates, and what it stands for. Political parties are still engrossed in the task of making itself and its candidates known to the electorates. So our young voters must know about political parties well enough if we want them to vote.

Maybe we also need to comprehend on what makes an informed voter. Anyone above 18 years of age is an eligible voter, but an informed voter is the one who is abreast of not only the political process but also about all political parties, its candidates and what they stand for. For our young democracy, it’s not enough to focus only on eligible voters. But it’s our duty to keep them informed as well.