A well-respected and prominent Bhutanese journalist who has a large following in Bhutan recently posted on his Facebook wall : "Bhutan one day could be crippled by political corruption which is why the institution of Monarchy is so important for the long term stability and the continued existence of Bhutan."
In Bhutan - where the Kings have been loved/are loved, where the institution of monarchy is highly respected because of all five King's who have placed the interest and the welfare of the country and people before themselves for as long as a 100 years - a statement like this seems fair and taken at face value it is well meaning.
It, however, takes much more to see through such a statement; especially when it is coming from a journalist who has built his reputation with great investigative pieces that have exposed large scale corruption leading him to become extremely popular and held in high regard by the common people.
While in all fairness the journalist has a right to make any ambiguous statements he wants, I sought more clarification because I really wanted to know if there was more to what he meant with this statement. Was he : i) asking that Bhutan eventually return to being a monarchy ii) that the monarchy have more say in the present system or iii) that the institution of monarchy which is a constitutional monarch, continue to remain this way?
Again, let me reiterate, taken at face value it is a fair statement in that the Institution of Monarchy is important and does provide the checks and balances to a democratic system. However, we need to strike the right balance and Bhutan - as of now - does have that, and I wanted to be clear that that was what he was implying.
In Bhutan - where the Kings have been loved/are loved, where the institution of monarchy is highly respected because of all five King's who have placed the interest and the welfare of the country and people before themselves for as long as a 100 years - a statement like this seems fair and taken at face value it is well meaning.
It, however, takes much more to see through such a statement; especially when it is coming from a journalist who has built his reputation with great investigative pieces that have exposed large scale corruption leading him to become extremely popular and held in high regard by the common people.
While in all fairness the journalist has a right to make any ambiguous statements he wants, I sought more clarification because I really wanted to know if there was more to what he meant with this statement. Was he : i) asking that Bhutan eventually return to being a monarchy ii) that the monarchy have more say in the present system or iii) that the institution of monarchy which is a constitutional monarch, continue to remain this way?
Again, let me reiterate, taken at face value it is a fair statement in that the Institution of Monarchy is important and does provide the checks and balances to a democratic system. However, we need to strike the right balance and Bhutan - as of now - does have that, and I wanted to be clear that that was what he was implying.