• 
• 

Published on January 14, 2008

 The latest political moves toward democracy in Bhutan and Nepal went two separate ways. Other monarchies try to remain relevant through succession and reinvention.

Bhutan became the world's newest democracy when its first parliamentary election was held on December 31, ending 100 years of absolute royal rule. Two days earlier, politicians in Kathmandu effectively kicked out King Gyanendra and in coming months will turn the mountainous kingdom into a modern-day republic.

The Bhutanese are fortunate as their king voluntarily gave up power in order to ensure a smooth transition of power. Three years ago, King Jigme Singye Wangchuck declared that he would take only a ceremonial rule. Back in 1998, he voluntarily gave up power and said he wanted the Bhutanese to take more responsibility for their own lives. In December 2006, he suddenly abdicated in favour of his son, Crown Prince Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuck. Although he is young, the Oxford-educated king has proven himself capable of taking up the huge responsibility passed down by his father. More importantly, he has to make Bhutan relevant in an age of globalisation.

Bhutan's experiment with democracy is worth watching closely, as in Asia there are quite a few countries with strong royal institutions. Before the real polls, the Bhutanese held two mock elections. The first real election was for 15 of the 25 seats of the national council, or the upper house. International observers described it as "free and fair". Later this month, five more will be elected and another five appointed by the king. Elections for the 75-member lower house will be held next month.

Thais are following political developments in this tiny kingdom with keen interest. They are curious to see how the young King Jigme Khesar will carry out his duties following the low-profile succession. Khesar is a well-liked figure here. During his first visit in July 2006 on behalf of his father, he was the most popular visiting royal and was constantly surrounded by throngs of admirers. His youth, easy-going and friendly nature were highly appreciated by Thais.

Nepal took a dramatic turn. King Gyanendra has been on the wrong side of history ever since assuming his position following the death of his brother in 2001, King Birendra, as well as his brother's family. He was more of a politician than a king. The year-end decision by parliament, which includes the Maoist party, ended a dynasty dating back to 1769. King Gyanendra seized power in early 2005 by dismissing the government and naming his own Cabinet. He reasoned that he needed the power to fight corruption and end the Maoist insurgency. With so much power, the king became a dictator and an enemy to all. He maniacally cracked down on the media and journalists were attacked and undermined. Worse, for the past two years his hard-handed approach has turned the rural population against him. As more of them joined the insurgency, the king was powerless to fight the Maoists.

Nepali media have ridiculed him for behaving like a politician. After a public uproar in 2005, it was expected that Gyanendra would survive only as a constitutional monarch without any power. Politicians other than the Maoists had second thoughts about eradicating the monarchy. After last April's people's uprising, it was clear that his reign was finished. The king restored parliament, which in turn restricted his power to prevent further abuses.

The new coalition government did not want to accept even this marginal level of power. As it turned out, King Gyanendra was his own biggest problem. When parliament voted to end the monarchy, nobody was surprised.

Elsewhere in Asia, a royal transformation has taken place successfully in Cambodia. When former King Norodom Sihanouk suddenly abdicated in October 2004, Cambodians were shocked at the dramatic change, but a week later, the nine-member Throne Council promptly selected Sihanouk's eldest son, Prince Norodom Sihamoni, to become the new king. Earlier there had been concerns that he would not live up to his father's reign. However, after barely three years, King Sihamoni has emulated his father and demonstrated to the Cambodian people that he works tirelessly for their benefit.

Thailand's case is quite different. His Majesty the King is currently 80 years old. Nobody knows what will happen next as it is taboo to discuss such a sensitive issue. At the international conference on Thai studies held recently at Thammasat University, open discussions took place at three sessions relating to the Thai monarchy, including one on Paul Handley's banned book. That broke new ground as far as Thai society is concerned.

Last year, Thai authorities completely lost their minds trying to stop the proliferation of anti-royal video clips on the video-sharing website YouTube. Indeed, they could learn a thing or two from Queen Elizabeth of England. She understands the ubiquity of the Internet and launched her own channel on YouTube to promote the British monarchy to a global audience. It was a smart move.

In other countries, royal transformations and related issues have been discussed by their people and in the media. Over here the usual knee-jerk bureaucratic response rules whenever these issues are raised, deepening a culture of fear. Recently the Fah Diaw Kan website was blocked because of its royal-related content. His Majesty declared in December, 2004 that he is not immune to criticism. Yet, nobody would dare. Within the Thai media, self-censorship on this issue is a must. There, foreign views are prominent. Last October, the Foreign Correspondents Club of Thailand published a collection of articles written by foreign journalists from around the world about His Majesty and his six-decade reign. Almost all of them were positive. It is imperative that the Privy Council, the special branch of the police force and bureaucrats, especially those dealing with online media, learn how to live with such debates in an open society.

Kavi Chongkittavorn

The Nation