State Financing for political parties?

This article appeared in Business Bhutan in support of state financing for political parties. For us to have a vibrant democracy, do we really need state support to political parties? I have a little mixed thoughts on this but I think this is something we need to ponder upon. Read view from one Tenzin Choeda, kanglung below:


In a revealing statement, while talking to the people of Gelephu this week, Lyonchen Jigmi Y. Thinley said that Bhutanese democracy is lacking something very important. He said there is no presence of politicalparties in the grassroots.

Local party workers are an important component of democracy who inform the seat of government at Thimphu the pulse of the people. But what is happening now is that the villagers get to see our MPs very few times in a year. And considering the poor financial state of our parties, as the prime minister said, they cannot have offices or paid staff in the constituencies.

And the Bhutanese people, mainly the educated lot who sit in Thimphu and write in online forums, have been bent on defeating the democratic process. The media also joined hands with the anti-political party sentiments and blocked state funding for political parties.

That was the first nail on the coffin of Bhutanese democracy. Sadly, we have come to a stage that to talk for state funding for parties is considered blasphemous.

Why do we need state funding for parties?

Formation of political parties in other democracies, especially in the commonwealth, has been a very organic process, with the parties already established before the ushering in of democracy. They began as small groups and then became big forces with an identifiable ideology of their own. The party member was first born before the party leader. A common ideology bound the party members, and a party system was already in place with scope for fund generation. For example, in India, even before the country became a democracy, the Indian National Congress was a well-oiled system with a strong base. Leaders changed, but the party lived on. And still, the local party units are strong pressure groups on the central leadership.

But the Bhutanese case was just the opposite. Leaders were not born from parties, but parties were born from leaders. There were no ideological differences between the parties. People put in money to support a friend, a relative, or a former respected bureaucrat. Election campaign ate up all funds, but elections ran smoothly and a government was formed. Has anyone thought that our elected leaders who sit in the highly ornate parliament house are like the grass that sprouts in the first rain? It looks beautiful and green, but the roots are not strong. The ‘grass roots’ are weak.

We are a growing democracy. Let us nurture it. Let our parties have wise party workers in the village who can guide our MPs. Let us have party offices where villagers can walk in and talk about their needs. Let us not block everything calling it ‘unconstitutional’. The Constitution is for the people, not people for the Constitution. Just because you may not like the government, please don’t nip the bud of democracy. Many Bhutanese are not happy with our MPs as they hiked their own pay, and demanded more respect with a pathang. But let democracy prevail. A sitting MP, if he fails in the next election, may resign from politics. But just because MPs or politicians leave, our experiment with democracy should not fail. The untimely and sad collapse of PDP is a writing on the wall for all Bhutanese to see. Can we renew the debate on state funding for political parties?

Tenzin Choeda,
Kanglung