System of governance

An absolute hereditary monarch rules Bhutan since 1907. The system of governance is autocratic, primitive, despotic and feudal. The king is the head of state and the government. He is the highest court of appeal.  The ministers are appointed by the king and are accountable to him.  The king represents the government and is accountable neither to the Legislature nor the people.  There is no constitution, Basic law or Bill of Rights.  It never had one in its entire history. Hence, the absolutism of the monarchy is comparable to medieval Europe.  The Royal words are the law of the land, which cannot be challenged. The Bhutanese people are not secure. Bhutanese people are not equal before law.  Some are more privileged than the others. The legal codes of Bhutan are still based on medieval period.  In the absence of the Constitution or clearly defined power of the government, the legislature, executive and the judiciary function as a single administrative structure under the command of the king. There is no opposition bench in the National Assembly. The law prohibits the formation of opposition political parties, human rights organizations, unions and associations. 

Legislature:         

The Legislature of Bhutan is called 'National Assembly' or 'Tshogdu' in Dzongkha, and was established in 1953.  It was inaugurated at Punakha by the third king Jigme Dorje Wangchuck. At the beginning the Tshogdu (the National Assembly) had only 130 members. Now, it consists of 151 members: 105 seats are filled by the so-called representatives of the people, who are selected and nominated by the Dzongdas (Chief Districts Officers). Including 20 Dzongdas the king appoints 35 representatives from the bureaucracy.  The trend clearly reflects increased domination of the National Assembly by the bureaucracy or executive organ of the government and it does not fulfill the criteria of being a truly legislative body.  The monks' body has strength of 5,000 monks and selects 10 members to the National Assembly and the business community is represented by one member through the Chambers of Commerce. The National Assembly used to meet twice a year in the past, but since the mid-nineties it meets only once in a year.  The National Assembly elects the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker from among members.

The Assembly Membership does not represent the real demographic, geographical or ethnic representation in the National Assembly.  It is not based on the principle of proportional representation. Out of 151 members in the National Assembly, 16 members represent Southern Bhutan that has population 4o%, their representation is 11% only.  Whereas, the Ngalongs of the north and west having 17% of the population have 78 members, which accounts for 51% representation. The Sharchhops in the east having a population of 40% have 57 members, which accounts 38% representation in the National Assembly. The rest 3% minorities have no representation in the National Assembly. 

The National Assembly could not evolve as a Representative House due to excessive meddling from the institution of monarchy.  It has been relegated to a rubber stamp, whose only objectives are to legitimize the actions and decisions of the king's government and glorify the monarch.  The king has the power to veto any legislation The National Assembly Members are indoctrinated on a selective basis to put forth their views on the agenda already fixed by the Dzongdas. They cannot put forward their grievances openly nor can they advise the government on the matter of importance, because the Dzongdas (district officer) have the power to decide what issues are to be taken to the National Assembly.  Dzongdas in the district never allow the public grievances to be taken to the Assembly.  Opposition and criticisms to the government policies and action is never heard in the National Assembly. 

Executive: 

The king directly controls the council of ministers headed by annually rotated so called Prime Minister. Bhutanese citizens do not have the right to change their government. The RGOB prohibits political parties and the organizations.  The country is a monarchy with sovereign power vested in the King. However, during 2001 a draft constitution was written.  The drafting committee was chaired by the Chief Justice of the High Court and was, composed of representatives of the Monastic body, the judiciary, and the Royal Government. The Government indicated that the Constitution would be a codification of existing Buddhist-influenced societal standards. During late 90s the King devolved his day-to-day executive powers to the Council of ministers, who were elected by the National Assembly from among themselves, but reserved control of "matters of national sovereignty and national security" for himself. He also introduced term limits for his Council of Ministers and proposed measures to increase the role of the National Assembly in the formation of his Government.

The 1998 decree provided that all cabinet ministers were to be elected by the National Assembly and that the roles and responsibilities of the cabinet ministries were to be spelled out. Each cabinet minister is to be elected by simple majority in a secret ballot in the National Assembly from among candidates nominated by the King. The King selects the nominees for cabinet office from among senior government officials holding the rank of secretary or above. The King has the power to determine the portfolios of his ministers, whose terms are limited to 5 years, after which they must pass a vote of confidence in the National Assembly in order to remain in office.  Finally the decree provided that the National Assembly, by a two-thirds vote of no confidence, can require the King to abdicate and to be replaced by the next person in the line of succession.   

After adopting the decree, the National Assembly elected a new council of ministers consistent with it.  But the King may nominate candidates for cabinet office; their election by the National Assembly was not a significant democratic reform. The King removed himself as Chairman of the Council of Ministers in 1998.  Based on an election held in the National Assembly in 1998, Cabinet Ministers who received the most votes rotate the position on a yearly basis. The Chairman of the Council of Ministers serves as Prime Minster and Head of Government. 

In July 2001, the National Assembly elected six Royal Advisory Councilors. There were elected or partially elected assemblies at the local, district, and national levels, and the Government claimed to encourage decentralization and citizen participation. These elections were conducted in much the same way as National Assembly elections. Since 1969 the National Assembly has had the power to remove ministers whom the King appoints, but it never has done so. Political authority ultimately resided in the King, and decision-making involves only a small number of officials. Officials subject to questioning by the National Assembly routinely make major decisions, but the National Assembly is not known to have overturned any decisions reached by the King and government officials.  

Our statement is justified with the cosmetic democratization process in Bhutan since 1999 when the king retired his old ministers and adopted a rotational premiership.  Further changes in 2002 included expanding the cabinet to ten ministers and hoodwinked the international community only to shy away from the protracted refugee imbroglio.  Yet in 2005, the King unveiled the “Draft Constitution” written by 39 handpicked committee members without any participation of the diverse population.  Although the Draft Constitution talks about King's retirement at 65, he declared to abdicate the Golden Throne in favor of Chhotse Penlop (Traditional appointment of Governor of Trongsa) in 2008 thereby creating Constitutional crisis as he resigns at the age of 53.  As he goes to patch up the family problem, he tries to outsmart world monarchs making a unique declaration and starting the process for a pseudo democracy.  

Judiciary/Legal System: 

The legal system in Bhutan is designed to protect the interests of the Royal Regime against the common Bhutanese people.  The 'Thrimzhung Chhenmo' and the National Security Act gives the Royal Government of Bhutan unlimited ambitious powers to punish anyone who opposes it or protests its policies.  Apart from the general public, these laws have been used to blatantly punish senior civil servants and even the judges who mistakenly or otherwise go against royal wishes.  Bhutanese courts, at the behest of the royal regime have violated legal provisions to charge and sentence people while the charges have been falsely fabricated violating several Bhutanese laws and legal provisions enacted by the regime to fulfill their own vested interest. The justice administration system is still primitive. Provisions for defense attorneys, lawyers, solicitors and jury trials are non-existent. It is shameful to say that  the 21st century Bhutanese people have not seen the Appellate Court. 

The High Court in Thimphu, known as the Royal Court of Justice is the country's Supreme Court.  It was setup in 1968. The High Court comprises six judges. The king appoints all judges, including the Chief Justice and has the power to remove.  King exercises his strong power over High Court and is the highest appeal of the judiciary. Only the King can pardon or commute a sentence.  The king can fire the dissenting judges summarily. There was no uniform system of qualifications for judge appointments.   Court decisions are not published and public access to the country's law is limited.  The National Library houses the legal codes in the national language, but other copies or volumes are not available to the public.  There is a legal requirement that citizens pay for their own legal counsel; however, many citizens were unable to afford representation and thus in practice did not receive legal assistance in court.  Questions of family law, such as marriage, divorce, and adoption, traditionally are resolved according to Buddhist tradition for the majority of the population. Arbitrary arrests and detention is the rule rather than exception.   

The judicial system consisted of three branches, the Sub-Divisional Court, the District Court, and a High Court. Judges serve at the King's pleasure, and the Government limited significantly the right to a fair trial.  Criminal cases and a variety of civil matters were adjudicated under a legal code established in the 17th century.  The Government limited significantly citizens' right to privacy; restricted freedom of speech, press, assembly, and association; citizens faced limitations on freedom of religion and the judiciary has never protected these rights. There is no uniform system of qualifications for judge appointments. No judicial official including the Chief Justice is trained in law. None of the judges processes a university degree. Arbitrary arrests and detention is the rule rather then exception. There is no system according to which a competent judge can issue arrest warrant.  Bhutan police has never seen an arrest warrant. The judicial system is there to implement an antiquated legal system based on mediaeval theocratic Buddhist percepts.  There are no laws providing for Arbitrary Interference with Privacy, Family, Home, or Correspondence. The police regularly conducted house-to-house searches for suspected dissidents without explanation or legal justification. The Government requires all citizens, including minorities, to wear the traditional dress of the Buddhist majority in all public places, and strictly enforced this law for visits to Buddhist religious buildings, monasteries, or government offices; in schools, and when attending official functions and public ceremonies. 

The Dzongkhag (district) court are headed by the district judges called Thrimpon, who are also given equal powers in judicial matters as the Dzongdas have in administrative and development matters.  Even Dungpas have the power to take up small cases and the cases that cannot be resolved by them are forwarded to the Thrimporn.  Thrimpon is assisted by a Thrimrab.  

The writ of Habeas Corpus is non-existent with the Bhutanese legal system.  Functioning under the absolute of the executives, the judiciary in Bhutan plays a tremendous role as a fighting tool to guard the interest of the ruling monopolist elite. In the absence of any check on these powers, the executive in Bhutan is an omnipotent organ. Hence, domestic legislation and policy enacted under the auspices of these executives is always oppressive and intended to protect and perpetuate its own rule. The interesting part is that there is no lawyer who has seen a law school or learnt international, civil, criminal laws and human rights. The jabmi (defense lawyers) is introduced since late 1990s but in the true sense of the term, their status cannot be of a lawyer. They are recruits from the villages who have been imparted training for a period of six months on the legal code, civil and criminal and awarded the status of defense lawyers. 

The legal system is designed to protect the interests of the Royal Regime against the common Bhutanese people.  The Thrimzhung Chhenmo and the National Security Act 1993 gives the Royal Government of Bhutan unlimited ambitious powers to punish anyone who opposes it or protests its policies.  Apart from the general public, these laws have been used to blatantly punish senior civil servants and even the judges who mistakenly or otherwise go against royal wishes. 

Royal Advisory Council:  

The third monarch, King Jigme Dorji Wangchuck, established the Royal Advisory Council (RAC) in 1965 with an objective of creating a bridge between the institution of monarchy and legislature.  The RAC consists of ten members; six members are elected from among the National Assembly Members by the National Assembly. Two members elected from the southern dzongkhag, two from western dzongkhags and one each from central and eastern dzongkhags.  Two are appointed by the Je khengpo (Chief Abbot), representing the central monastic body; and the king has the power to appoint two members.  

The Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the Royal Advisory Council are appointed by the king. At the beginning the terms of office of all the members was five years and were eligible for re-election.  But since the nineties the term has been reduced to three years and the incumbent cannot stand for the second term.  The main functions of the Royal Advisory Council are to advise the king and the council of ministers on all matters of national importance; to promote the welfare of the people and national interest of the kingdom;   to develop friendly and harmonious relations between the government and the people and to insure that the laws and resolutions passed by the National Assembly are faithfully implemented by the government and the people.   The council functions on regular basis as it was intended to represent the assembly between its sessions.   

In 1984, King Jigme Singye Wangchuck ordered formulation of new sets of rules and functional guidelines to empower and strengthen the Royal Advisory Council.  Accordingly, a new rule authorized the RAC to report to the cabinet and the assembly without any fear if any person, including the king found to be doing anything harmful to the interest of the Tsa-Wa-Sum.  However, with passage of the time, instead of being strengthened and promoted, the RAC has been reduced to a mare ceremonial institution and used as a tool to protect the serve the vested interests of the ruling elites.  It no longer serves as an advisory body and has been reduced to auditing the accounts of government departments.

In July 1998, the king declared the Royal Advisory Council did not need regional representations. Same year when the people’s representative was elected to the council for a new term, not a single Lhotshampas were elected.  It is clearly evident that the ruling elites are determined to marginalize the Lhotshampas from the national mainstream. It is also clear from the manipulative and communal politics of the ruling elites that their primary concern and priority is the protection and preservation of their powers and privileges and certainly not the welfare of the country and its people.