Learning from the thromde elections

The thrompon election in the three thromdes of Thimphu, Gelephu and Phuentsholing are over completing the first leg of the much-awaited local government elections.

Thimphu re-elected their former thrompon unanimously and Gelephu voted in the former chief engineer of the thromde. In Phuentsholing, the excitement was watered down when the former thrompon was disqualified. The other contestant narrowly managed to win on the “Yes” and “No” votes.

There were no major issues as of last night and the first phase of the local government has passed without any problems. While we wait for the petition period and the thrompon elects to join office, there are lessons we could learn to make the next phase or phases smoother.

One common issue was not having the voter photo identity card that many forgot to collect or bring to the polling station. After waiting for hours, some were sent home, as they couldn’t vote with their citizenship identify card. Relatives and friends of candidates were handy in rushing to election offices and collecting the cards.

But that is a one-time solution. The election commission of Bhutan had been educating voters and this is not the first election. Voters should be well aware of the importance of the card. As the ECB prepares for the next round of election, this could be a good lesson to prepare the voters in advance. As it is we are already seeing poor voter turn out. Working together with local government to ready voters could improve the turnout even if those returning from polling stations are not huge in numbers.

As expected, the turnout was far better than at the zomdus, but it was not encouraging still. Thimphu recorded only 31 percent. It is a shame indeed.

For whatever reasons, the majority of the thromde’s voters chose not to vote. One reason that is unofficially discussed was that the election was boring because there were no contestants. And the election commission is blamed for not announcing the election dates as they were expected to do. ECB denies it.

Phuentsholing saw the highest turnout. Almost an equal number of the 487 voters came to vote “No” for the lone candidate after the former thrompon was disqualified. He won by only nine more “yes” votes. Those who came to exercise their franchise should be commended even if there was only a lone candidate. Even in Thimphu there were about 150 people who voted “No”.

An unfounded concern both among voters and election officials is making the details of the “Yes” and “No” votes public. They fear repercussions from the elected officials. This is petty. Elected leaders are to represent their people and should think beyond their constituency. They should appreciate people exercising their franchise.

If an elected official starts differentiating, he or she is not suited to lead. He should work hard to win the trust of those who have not voted for him. That would be a big achievement.

1 reply
  1. irfan
    irfan says:

    A leader is believed to lead his vision, missions and objectives and he does that irrespective of an election result or even without being selected for an election process. So a leadership philosophy always remains responsible for societal ideologies for which voters or electorates say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to a leadership.

    From one point of view, it’s about a leader considering an uniform ideology in pursuit of a overall leadership philosophy meant for all. So there shouldn’t be a question mark raised against him that he’ll fail one set of societal ideology for not electing his candidature. But from the people’s point of view, fear of discrimination is dominant only for their own ideological differences. And these differences should never be a barrier in electing a leadership philosophy with the right set of vision, missions and objectives. Whether it’s a Thromde or a society in consideration; elimination of ideological clashes and differences is a must for progress and developments and that can only be achieved through a genuine leadership philosophy which the country already has.

    But the bigger question to deal with is whether we need a system of leadership appointment where ideological clashes become inevitable in every stage of governance? It’s good that the Election Commission is doing their best in educating voters on the importance of the voter card and voting franchise. But even for the electorates, all elections are not just about registering an attendance. It’s their right to say ‘yes’ to a leadership philosophy that they feel is suitable for all of them irrespective of numerous ideological differences in clash. Even in business, we have a system of leaders and managers and then a management system as the leader. But governance is not any business; and for democracy to be a winner, leadership philosophy must include all for eliminating ideologically triggered egoisms resulting from that same democratic system.

    So it’s actually a bit unfortunate to have voters saying both ‘yes’ and ‘no’ to a same person and his leadership in electing the P’ling Thrompon. And we all know and hope that the leadership philosophy will not be affected if there is only an ideological difference in saying ‘yes’ or ‘no’ than just ‘yes’ and ‘no’ while electing a leadership.

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply