As for the funding of the parties, I agree with Zekom’s arguments. We are a small country with small population. If we have more parties, it will be unlikely that the
parties can sustain on contributions and membership fees. We have already seen this problem. So state funding is the only way to sustain the parties.

I mentioned about the criticisms that state funding all over the world is facing and not that it isnt allowed all over the world. Think you should get yourself a reading glass.

Yes, there are countries not only in europe but the Americas, Africa and also Asia practicing state funding. But the question is what did it give rise to, mostly – Democracy without opposition. I think you should do some reading before defending your non-sense. Or are you a friend of the NA comedian.

No offence but read the Book – On Democracy by Robert Dahl / Size and Democracy (same author) / Democracy without Opposition by Ethan Scheiner.

Best

Do you think people would be willing to donate to selfish bunch of loaded people.

The real issue that needs to be debated first is whether the state ought to fund political parties. If yes, and if no authoritative interpretation of Tsa Thrim Chhenmo permits such financing, then the constitution has to be amended.

What’s my view?

Political parties are not private companies. They are not even public corporations that make stuff for sale like electricity. They are public institutions that move our democracy, linking the parliament to grass roots. And, a wholesome democracy needs a good party in government and an equally good one in opposition.

So, I would rather see them both fully funded by the state – out of the taxes I pay.

Why worry? Money matters. Think about incentives!

What would I do, if my company’s livelihood depended on registration and membership fees? I’d go all out to maximize registered members, when I ought to be spending my time and resources running a successful business enterprise. Ditto, for parties.

In reality, you might say, income from these fees pale in comparison with voluntary contributions. Indeed, financial statements of DPT and PDP show precisely that.

But, what’s small for the organization as a whole can be big for each party worker. Getting members signed up and generating revenue for the “firm” could warp the party ethics at the grass roots where it matters most. No matter what party leaders profess, incentives and behaviors of grass-roots workers are where the party reputation is made.

I went back to read the Election Bill again. It says contributions are permitted, “Provided that all such contributions shall be made voluntarily and must not be given to receive any favours, political or otherwise, and provided further that all such contributions shall be made by cheques that must be declared before the Commission.”

You must be joking! The only contributions without any strings attached – real or perceived – are those placed in a blind trust. Meaning, political parties may know the grand total of all contributions, but will never know who wrote individual cheques.

Think about incentives, again. What would I do, if anywhere between 70% (PDP) to 95% (DPT) — the last time I looked at their books — of my earnings came from contributors? They are the better-off segments of our society. Wouldn’t I hesitate to execute policies that may be good for the nation, but make the contributors angry? Worse yet, wouldn’t my policy judgment become biased in their favour, even when there were no visible strings attached?

Besides, I know what losses and debts do to business psyche. It makes you anxious. Desperation makes you want to hang on, when the best solution may be to take the loss and shut your business down, as OL quite rightly states.

Power is intoxicating even without the need to make money. I’d shudder to think what it would do to the business of politics.

But, make no mistake. I mean the state ought to finance political parties ex-ante, not ex-post to finance their deficits.

Why? Forgiving deficits is a bad idea. Think of incentives once again. The next time around, parties will be even more wasteful, since the government would come to rescue anyway. Economists call it moral hazard, and tell us to avoid it like a plague. Methinks economists got it right on this one.

Money should not matter in good democracy. The only reward for political parties ought to be the voters’ approval – of their intended policies and their delivery track record. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Your Majesty,

I most humbly submit the following in the interest of the kind of democracy envisioned by Your Majesty and our visionary Fourth King, and not the one that is unfolding presently, in the hope as the final arbiter Your Majesty will intervene for the benefit of the people and true democracy in Bhutan.

As a citizen of this country (and there are thousands like me)I am extremely and deeply disturbed by the blatantly unconstitutional maneuverings of the ruling government in the exclusive pursuit of their self-interest in the Parliament.

The National Assembly is turning into a spectacle of one party gaming the entire system to such proportions that have few precedents in any democracy at any given period in the history of the world, including dictatorial ones.

In the garb of establishing a “unique” and “world-class” democracy the ruling party’s covert and absolute intention is to strengthen their party and hold on to power unconstitutionally by bulldozing policies that do not benefit anyone but themselves and their party. I am not sure about “world-class” but it will indeed be the most “unique” failure of democracy (especially given that no other country in the history of the world had such favorable and peaceful conditions for the advent of democracy) if laws, including the Constitution are to be changed or misinterpreted intentionally to benefit the ruling party and its MPs.

I humbly plead with you to consider the following: The only issues our ruling MPs have fought for tooth and nail are: (1) increasing their perks, benefits and priveleges, which includes their salaries, allowances, house rent, vehicles, driver allowances, patangs, special number plates for their vehicles, salutes from the armed forces, etc; (2) The CDG, which is 100% unconstitutional even to the illiterate mind and is nothing but an overt means to ensure that the ruling party remains in power. Do we really believe that the CDG is their noble intention of serving their constituents? The answer of any thinking person would be a resounding “No”. How can it be “yes” when the MPs will not even answer their mobile phones when they know it is their constituents calling them? The CDG smacks of absolute self-interest; (3) their attacks and not so subtle threats to the media for bringing to public domain issues that are of concern to, and affect the public and the principles of democracy just because they portray them in an unflattering light; (4) their party to be funded by the government and taxpayers. This will only promote and lead to a two-party system thereby ensuring that they remain inn power for all time to come (either as ruling party or opposition party). To achieve this end they are even seriously considering changing the existing laws (including the Constitution)in order to make it legal for the government to fund their party. They are putting their party above everything else including the principles of democracy and law. I say only “their” party because the opposition has realized that state funding of political parties is unconstitutional, as was the CDG, and that state funding does not promote participation of future political parties in Bhutan’s democracy and therefore the opposition is not fighting for state funding , as is the ruling party. This is their way of elbowing out future political parties from Bhutan’s democratic scenario. Yet they state with impunity that democracy will collapse in Bhutan if their party is not funded by the government. Does democracy in Bhutan depend totally on their single party? If the answer is “yes” then it is indeed the saddest day for Bhutan’s democracy. Why is the opposition party managing better without state funding than the ruling party? One reason could be that the ruling party MPs and ministers are not happy that they have to contribute 10% of their salary to their party and hope that if state funding can be obtained then they would not have to make this contribution. It was themselves who decided the 10% contribution and if they can foist self-serving policies down the entire nation’s throat through the NA then they can surely repeal the 10% contribution in one of their internal party meetings. We get the impression that they are clamoring for state funding just to save their 10% contribution. For want of their 10% they will cost the government, taxpayers, and development activities millions of Ngultrums annually. Should we the taxpayers be paying for a party that we no longer have trust and faith in?

Apart from the matters mentioned above there has not been a single issue, and I repeat, NOT A SINGLE ISSUE, that the ruling MPs have fought for with so much vigor and interest in the NA.

The ruling party should respect and follow the constitution instead of trying to make the Constitution respect and follow their party.

The ruling MPs are subverting the very process of democracy that they are meant to protect and uphold. Although banning live telecast of the NA proceedings and processes makes a mockery of transparency and accountability (which they swore to uphold in their manifesto), we can somehow live with it. But the Speaker ordering the MPs not to disclose or talk about the proceedings of the NA outside the NA Hall is preposterous to say the least and reeks of autocracy. Is it not the duty of the MPs to report to and inform their voters about the proceedings and outcomes of the NA? How is such information going to be disseminated to the voters and public at large when live telecast of the proceeding is banned and when MPs are ordered not to talk about the proceedings outside the NA Hall? Or is it their intention to keep the entire nation in the dark while vigorously passing self-serving policies and laws secretely behind closed doors?

It is only through Your Majesty’s intervention that Bhutan may be able to avert a national crisis that is looming on the horizon. If these issues cannot be resolved now in the best interest of democracy, it just might be too late in future.

For the record, I am, as was almost 70% of the country, a voter who unfortunately voted for the ruling party that is fast becoming an autocratic and dictatorial one and whose self-interest seems to be preempting all other considerations.

Yours most humbly,

Karma Rigzin
rigzinkarma@gmail.com