Building new democracy in Bhutan

Last week a tiny Himalayan country of Bhutan (population of 600,000) became the world’s newest democracy. With a high turnout of nearly 80 percent, the winning Druk Phuensum Tshogpa (DPT) party took 44 out of the 47 seats in the parliament and gained a strong mandate to implement reforms.

There wasn’t much drama involved in the elections. First, it was the King himself who initiated the transition from hereditary monarchy to democracy. In 2006, King Jigme Singye Wangchuck handed over power to his son, the current king, and ordered an end to absolute monarchy (the country will continue to have a monarch as the head of state). Second, the two leading parties competing in the elections had nearly identical programs. Both were promising to bring modernization and pursue greater “gross national happiness,” or a path of development emphasizing the role of respect for culture, religion, and environment in economic progress.

Democracy itself is one of the first elements of this push to modernize. In a country where satellite television came less than a decade ago, not surprisingly democracy was also welcomed with a degree of mistrust by many conservative Bhutanese wary of the unknown. Such mistrust illustrates a crucial broader point: elections are hugely important, but in and of themselves not enough. Now that the elections are over, Bhutan faces a much more profound long-term challenge of building, strengthening, and sustaining its institutions of democratic governance.

As Larry Diamond said in his latest book, one day it is possible for the whole world to become democratic – just as Bhutan did a few days ago. But the performance of many new democracies around the world is very troubling. Even free and competitive elections do not automatically translate into good democratic governance and weak governance in turn leads to instability, corruption, and economic mismanagement. Diamond concludes that

…it is not enough for the whole world to become democratic. The more consequential questions are, can those countries that become democracies remain democracies, and can they achieve a level of democracy that their people judge as worth having? (…) For democratic structures to endure – and to be worthy of endurance – they must be more than a shell. They must have substance, quality, and meaning. They must, over time, hear people’s voices, engage their participation, tolerate their protests, protect their freedoms, and respond to their needs.

Hopefully Bhutan can rise up to this complex task of giving its new democracy deeper substance, quality, and meaning through building institutions of participatory democratic governance beyond the elections.