 |
|
| Kathmandu, Thursday December 26, 2002 Paush 11, 2059. |
|
Bhutan’s
Constitution and refugees
By RAKESH CHHETRI
The King of
Bhutan handed over to the Bhutanese Prime Minister, on December 3, the first draft
Constitution of Bhutan prepared by the Constitution Drafting Committee, set up by the
King in November 2001. This draft will be discussed in 20 districts before it is
presented to the National Assembly (NA), when it convenes in June 2003.
After the traditional
‘flattery, crying and wailing’ by the NA members against the purported change in
the political system envisaged by the Draft Constitution and in support of the existing
regime, the Constitution will be adopted. In any case the NA sessions are stage-managed by
the RGOB. All nations have a Constitution as basic law, so it is hardly exciting if
Bhutan wants to have one even belatedly, to make it a respectable and
sovereign member of international community.
Bhutan was admitted to
the UN in 1971 without a Constitution. It is probably the last country in the world,
which does not have a basic law and the Royal decrees are still the laws. Mere adoption of
a Constitution does not mean the establishment of a true representative democratic
system. China, Myanmar and Pakistan, all have Constitution minus a true
representative democratic system.
Committee: The Royal
Government of Bhutan ( RGOB) did not include any member from Nepali-speaking Lhotshampa
community in the drafting committee, thus, muting the minority voice in
its formulation. Thus, the Constitution will always be a subject of debate and controversy
even after its adoption. A controversial Constitution will definitely not command
expected respect from the citizens.
Gimmick: The
Constitution is being officially publicised as a ‘Royal Gift" without
the desire or the demands of people. This ‘Constitution’ is yet
another gimmick in the arsenal of the RGOB to hoodwink the international community
and deflect international opinion from the real issue of the repatriation of
Bhutanese refugees, resettlement in the lands vacated by refugees and human rights abuses
inside Bhutan. There will be no real freedoms and all the rights promised by the drafting
committee are impossible to achieve in Bhutan. The demand for the Constitution came from
the exiled Bhutanese groups, which the RGOB does not recognise. The RGOB is under no
threat or pressure to promulgate the Constitution as the demand for the Constitution did
not come from the Bhutanese people inside Bhutan. The Chairman of the drafting committee
and the RGOB have frequently told the international media that the people do not want
Constitution and are happy with the present system.
Moreover, the RGOB has
been already saying that it is a ‘royal gift’ rather than peoples’
aspiration. While the Constitution was at the final stage of drafting, a
country-wide election was held on October 29, 2002 for the post of 201 village
headman which was not conducted by any independent Election Commission, but by the
Dzongdas (district administrators) as usual. How can it be called a democratic exercise?
The Constitution thus, is intended to serve the interests of the rulers and not of
the ruled. In real terms, Bhutan would be no different from the erstwhile Panchayati raj
in pre-1990 Nepal after the adoption of Constitution.
Some government hawks
and advisors ridiculously argue that Bhutan’s autocratic system has substance
of democracy. Others argue that the "grassroots democracy" is the only
suitable form of democracy for Bhutan, downplaying the role of political parties and the
civil society in the new Constitution. However, their arguments look naive, self-confusing
and self-defeating. Since the democracy is "of the people, for the people and by the
people’ and this is the ultimate and universally accepted principle of
democracy. People are primary and grassroots institutions and the political parties
and the civil society promote and protect their rights and interests.
Personal freedoms:
Bhutanese people do not enjoy even basic personal freedoms like wearing the dresses of
their own choice. The government infringes the personal freedoms with
the prescription of dress code, similar to what Chinese rulers did during the
cultural revolution. The government is still sponsoring its pet project ‘Driglam
Namzha’, the social and religious codes which ban the wearing of a other dresses
(except national dress) by Bhutanese people. And here the government is talking
about the ‘Bill of Rights and democracy’ in a grandiose manner. How can Bhutan
balance between the forces of personal freedoms envisaged by the Constitution and the
government-sponsored Driglam Namzha?
Lack of institutions:
The RGOB has not established any democratic institutions to implement and support the
Constitution. In fact, it never encouraged for the creation of these institutions. The
RGOB should have first established the basic democratic institution prior to implementing
the Constitution. There is
no Election Commission. There are no qualified judges with legal educational
background to interpret the Constitution and uphold the independence of the
judiciary. People have no right to freedom of expression and press, which are the basic
pillars under which the Constitution and a democratic society stand.
Without the right to
freedom of expression and press, how are the people expected to deliberate on the
Constitution and express their views? The government must allow the political parties and
real civil societies to function inside the country. Other countries including Nepal which
switched over to democracy from the autocratic or totalitarian system did have these
institutions including legally qualified judges. The basic flaw in the Bhutanese
society, system and the government is not the lack or absence of a Constitution,
but their intolerance to any kind of criticism. A rebel is born, if he is
prevented from speaking.
There are hundreds of
political prisoners in Bhutanese prisons incarcerated for their criticism of the
government policies and voicing concern for political and human rights. It is impossible
for the people who are still being denied and deprived of their basic rights to
believe that the criticism-hating feudal system will change just
because, it has adopted a 50 pages of the document and that this document will
bring qualitative and real change to their lives.
Refugees: The
new Constitution will not solve Bhutanese refugee problem, rather it will exacerbate
their situation. If the discriminatory Citizenship Act, 1985, which is responsible
for the generation of refugees is incorporated in the new Constitution, it will
prevent the return of Bhutanese refugees permanently. The RGOB is likely to keep this Act.
If the elections are held before the repatriation of refugees, this will eventually block
the return of refugees since, their name will not be included in the electoral roll
or voter list, thus making them non-citizens permanently. Thus, the objectives of the
constitutional exercise as of now, seems to stall the repatriation of Bhutanese
refugees. The King in his national address on national day Dec 17 outlining the policies
supported the resettlement in southern Bhutan.
Bhutanese rulers must
accept the fact that the primary requirement of Bhutanese nationhood is the
consolidation and defence of a nation-state system, where all ethnic groups share the
common ‘space’ and live in prosperity. Any change not supported by adequate
and appropriate institutions, mechanism and people’s support tend to collapse the
entire system, sometimes violently, for which the change is sought for.
Internationalisation:
So long, the international community has been watching the bilateral initiatives as a
mute spectator and has not taken a pro-active initiative for the real repatriation.
The decade-old bilateral initiative has become futile and completely incapable of
repatriating Bhutanese refugees to their homeland. There had been nodearth of
international diplomatic community’s visits to the refugee camps including that of
the head of the UNCHR. Despite these, no genuine and visible efforts
and commitments on the repatriation of Bhutanese refugees have been taken by the
international community and the United Nations. International community has not done
anything even after a year of the completion of verification - even the
verification results have not been published.
Bhutanese refugees are
watching the international mediation on diffusing the violent conflict in Sri
Lanka. They are also keenly watching the international interests in solving the
Maoist problems in Nepal. These efforts demonstrate that if the international
community desires, it can solve vexed problems including the repatriation of Bhutanese
refugees. However, no such initiatives or concerns from the international community
or the United Nations for the actual repatriation of the Bhutanese refugees have
come forward. This is high time that the United Nations and the international community
took initiatives to repatriate Bhutanese refugees.
(The author is a
Bhutanese political analyst)
Other Stories
|
