In a statement issued Tuesday, the party said most significant is the continuing absence of an independent, impartial judiciary and the subsequent absence of a guarantee of fundamental human rights for the common people.

“Political prisoners who were imprisoned for demanding democracy are still incarcerated. They don’t have any means of seeking redressal. With the largely unchanged intrinsic policy of the “democratic” Government towards the democratization of Bhutan, their only hope of appeal rests with the Judiciary,” the statement reads.

DNC demands for immediate release of these political prisoners after the promulgation of the constitution to show that the government is democratic – what they had demanded was admittedly correct and the regime did go about ultimately “fulfilling” this demand. Failing to do this, DNC doubts about Bhutan’s democratic credentials and if Bhutan is truly working towards a democratic culture.

In addition, the Government is using both the Thrimzhung Chhenpo as well as Constitution at its convenience. Article 1(10) “…. the provisions of any law, whether made before or after the coming into force of this Constitution, which are inconsistent with this Constitution, shall be null and void”. All provisions of the Thrimzhung Chhenpo that are inconsistent with the Constitution or with any new laws enacted to replace provisions of the Thrimzhung Chhenpo, should be scrapped. Because of Government inaction, the people are more confused.

As in the past, the police and the security forces still have wide unconstitutional authority to harass the people, especially in the border regions, in the name of security. Members of Parliamentarians are witness to the police brutality and its unconstitutional authority. But they continue to keep mum. For the moment it seems that the MPs are beyond the reach of the police while innocent people are harassed and terrorized, but if left unchecked, a time will come when tables will inevitably turn. There are many such examples, some in not so very far neighbouring states, where unchecked security forces, exploited to the advantage of the leadership to exert control over the masses, evolves into an undesirably structured establishment with no moral reserve, and has turned on its own elected leaders.

It appears that the regime is also determined to control the leadership at the grassroots. To achieve this end, the elections to the Local Governments has been intentionally delayed for over two years to circumvent the time limit of erstwhile candidates to the Parliament, so that they can be drafted back to grassroots polity. The Bhutanese Election Act states, he or she will be eligible to participate in local election provided he/she has dissociated from the party for 12 months.

It is tragic that Lawmakers/Parliamentarian are assiduously working on how to increase their own perks and benefits, while issues related to democracy, human rights and democratic governance is hardly raised. Instead, Members of Parliamentarians are involved making hue and cry that democracy in Bhutan will fail if political parties do not get state funding and cease to exist. When the 2 political parties were established in 2007, the party presidents and members must have foreseen the financial viability. Otherwise, why plunge into politics? Why adopt the existing law governing the party finances?

DNC said through resignation National Council Vice Chairman Karma Ura intended to send message  that democracy is unhealthy for Bhutan.

It further said, the government’s prioritization of democratic reforms is at most embarrassingly inadequate. It is carrying on with business as usual, with, apart from the holding of elections and a new elected Parliament, nothing to really differentiate its functioning from the governments of the past. “If the essential ingredients and basis of democracy is not put into place, democratic governance will always remain a far off mirage. And this will be to no one’s advantage, and will in the end bring instability,” DNC president Rongthong Kuenley said.

Ura is one the five appointee by King Jigme Khesar to the National Council following the election of the parliament in December 2007. He submitted resignation to King.

The king has accepted his resignation, of which information was passed on to NC chairman Namgue Penjore.

Ura is Director of Center for Bhutan Studies, founded by current prime minister Jigmi Thinley. His published books include The Hero With a Thousand Eyes (1995), The Ballad of Pemi Tshewang Tashi: A Wind Borne Feather (1996), Deities, Archers and Planners in the Era of Decentralization (2004), The Bhutanese Development Story, and numerous other books and articles on Bhutanese history, culture, and literature.

Despite repeated calls form the House, the ministers either absented or sent only written responses to its questions in previous sessions. There are no clear mandates how ministers should answer the questions raised in the parliament. In the winter session, the Council had wanted to invite about five ministers for the question-answer session, but none of them turned up.

The NC plans to set day and time for such session in advance. It also mulls for on-spot questions, unlike the past custom of sending questionnaire to ministers in advance.

Guidelines for this is being drafted and distributed among the NC members. Once prepared, it will be sent to cabinet and national assembly for discussion.

On Monday, they arrived for New Delhi for their first parliamentary meeting with India. During the 12-day tour, the councilors are scheduled to visit the Indian Parliament and participate in a debate organized by the Bureau of Parliamentary Studies and Training (BPST). 

National Council secretariat said the visit will enable the delegation to understand the organization and functioning of various parliamentary committees and institutions in India.

Council’s statement reads, “It will also promote relationship between parliaments of the two countries, and strengthen our bilateral goodwill.” Last year, a team of National Assembly had visited Denmark on a similar program.

Injecting democratic values 

The National Assembly members

The deficiency of political consciousness – not alone in people but in political leadership – has begun to hunt the new born democracy in Bhutan. Even today, the hardcore nationalists claim the obvious object of King Jigme Singye was to transform nation into a parliamentary democracy peacefully. It is unclear, had there been any real interest to do so and had there been any effort to inject the ideas, values and procedures of democratic government in at least the probable political tycoons.

The nation has an apolitical upper house, a rarely practiced phenomenon in parliamentary democracies. Since the upper house National Assembly has greater attachment to sentiments of the King, for it has five nominees from him, the power tussle between the two houses has already surfaced. It was the first tussle of the first session of the first parliament of democratic Bhutan.

The first DPT government unveiled its incomplete (since the budget was later amended) financial bill at the lower house National Assembly after which the NC claimed it has the legal authority to have say in the bill. Being apolitical, the government sensed some intrigues from NC that could alter the provisions and programs in the budget thus forcing it to change some of the economic agendas and strategies. Resultantly, two houses quarreled on whether they have absolute authority to deal with the fiscal budget. 

Who should pass financial bill?

Budget is the financial bill and according to the constitution, both the houses have equal rights to debate and approve it, NC said. In response the DPT-lodged NA without listening, announced it endorsed the budget. In reality, the joint sitting of both the house remained divided on endorsing it and today, the budget is implemented without approval from the Upper House. The motive to subdue the voices from upper house was the fear the DPT government had that proposed projects for state support to the political parties and constituency development grants to Members of Parliament (MPs) could be chocked out. It was because the NC had termed these provisions as unconstitutional. The constitution restricts any state funding to political parties and constituency development budget to the politicians. Almost the year has gone by – only four months left to end the fiscal year– but still the two houses remain divided whether the budget should be reviewed and endorsed from the upper house as well. 

The cause is the result of rulers who isolated people from reading democratic practices from across the globe in the past. Now, the political leadership finds no alternatives to inviting Indian lawyer for interpreting Bhutanese constitution. In a sense, an expert hired for drafting the constitution certainly has advantage in interpreting the constitution but in other, his presence will have a prolonged impact on Bhutan’s constitutional practices indirectly authorizing the Indian experts as the final interpreter of our law. This is not just to demean our expertise but to undermine the role of Bhutanese judiciary on whose head lies the final authority to interpret the constitution.  

Legitimacy and the expertise of Chief Justice Sonam Tobgay have come to the foray with this initiative. The defenders may say it is the Supreme Court, yet to be constituted as provisioned by the constitution, that has the authority to interpret the constitution but it does not subscribe the fact that High Court currently serving as the ad hoc Supreme Court has no legality or authority at all on this matter. In addition, Sonam Tobgay was named the chairperson by King Jigme Singye to draft the constitution, which subtly suit to credit Tobgay for moving country into the constitutional monarchy. He could have helped what drafting team had discussed the issued during the constitution making process.  

The ghost continued to hunt the second session of the parliament. The NC members were adamant to dig up their right to have say in the budget procedures. The DPT dominated NA could resist no more pressure. Finally, the easy exit for the party is to have some experts speak about the issue. Then, NA eventually thought inviting India’s top advocate K. K. Venugopal to use his expertise to interpret what Bhutanese constitution says. 

The interpreter of the Bhutanese constitution

What NA did came to the floor very late. Outsiders knew only recently why the debate on budget had abruptly closed without a compromising conclusion from the two houses. According to Venugopal, provisions of Article 13 and 14 of the Bhutanese Constitution follow the procedures for financial legislation similar to that of India – the country which endorses budget only from lower house.

According to the interpretation of Bhutanese constitution by this lawyer, the budget is first discussed in both the Houses and only the Lower House has the authority to vote on the categories of expenditures or the appropriation bill under the budget.

The assertion of NC has weight on one aspect that it has the authority to vote on the budget since it is a bill but it has also demanded that it should be sent to the King for endorsement, the practice set only in few democracies. 

Constitutional provision 

The constitution of Bhutan does not adequately explain whether budget is regarded as bill but in general practice, financial bill is used to define budget. But because this is yearly cycle, Financial Bill is different than other bills, which become permanent laws of the country upon endorsement. The constitution says in case of the urgent bills and budget, they shall be passed in the same session of the parliament. To note this side of the constitution, when it comes to the procedures laid for passing bills, budget is deemed to be a bill – the Financial Bill and has to go to King for assent upon approval from both the houses. 

However, Kottayan Katankot Venugopal said the word ‘bills’ is not qualified by the word ‘Budget,’ as a result of which the question of placing the Budget for the assent for the King will not arise. And this has been accepted by Bhutanese lawyers, faithfully. 

The concern is not about how budget is passed in parliament but is the measure taken for interpretation of the constitution. It is not necessary that Bhutan has to follow what India has. And this does not mean Bhutan should not follow what India has.

Interpretation of constitution has larger impact on national sovereignty. Had the National Assembly asked Indian lawyer about budget procedures in his country, issue would not have come to be debatable. Had these MPs who visited Denmark to learn parliamentary practices inquired about budget endorsement process in Europe, Bhutan could have set its own procedures for this. It is unseen factor whether they had ignored the issue or feared of lessening Indian influences in national politics. Denmark where MPs visited to take tuition on democracy and parliamentary practices, the single chamber of the people’s representatives passes the Financial Bill and is sent to Queen, the head of the state, for assent before the budget is implemented by the ruling party.

The National Assembly has the authority, by virtue and by constitutional provisions, to amend constitutions to suit the need and time. Debating on procedure and setting a constitutional provision would have been a better solution for the constraint than inviting a foreign lawyer for its interpretation. The Indian version of interpretation of our constitution has ceded sovereign authority and supremacy of interpretation of our constitution to India.  

Democracy has been established and people’s representatives have been adorned with authority to formulate laws, protect national sovereignty. It is their duty to determine how budget must be passed in the parliament, even if that needed amendment in constitution defining budget – whether it is to be regarded as bill or different.