Not so long ago, since Bhutan
embraced a Democratic form of government, there has been one thing, notable and
worth brainstorming-different interpretations of the laws by the parties in the
fray, immediately ensuing controversial decisions in the Assembly. Reading
between lines to defend one's own stand, the opinions of the people were swayed
between two. This gives one an impression that laws could be bent, stretched
and twisted, of its flexibility of language for favoring one's decision, though
it might have been flawed, unless true interpretations were sought from
the Supreme Court, apex interpreting body.
During the first democratically elected government, the opposition had a tussle
over the ruling government on the case of misinterpretation of the constitution,
which had reached to the Supreme Court for final interpretations. But a
question looms, what if the decisions were taken not in the spirit of the law
and goes on without seeking advice of the Supreme Court? It would be the
subjects who has to brave the tremor of such decisions, obviously not the politicians.
But the story hadn't stopped. Today, it's yet another narrative that would be
scripted in the book of Bhutanese Democracy; Money Bill or Ordinary Bill? There
appears a thick fog of misunderstanding, whether to declare Parliamentarians
Entitlement Bill, a money bill or the latter despite the government claiming
it's a money bill and decision already taken. Should it be a money bill, it has
to be deliberated in a joint sitting, which was not the case.
 |
| Source: Google |
The political drama and
conundrum surrounds around myriad interpretations one could make from a
sentence. However, very interestingly, everyone in the Parliament shows a
bubbling confidence while deliberating in the hall, never to have sought clarifications
from the supreme court, formally or informally. The drama ensues, post
deliberations and decisions. The case is not a surprise to Bhutanese. We have
heard the first elected government being dragged to the court for the same
reason. It validates a critique that the Bhutanese buy, 'we hardly learn
lesson'.
It has added to the smoke and cloud further when NC decided to defer
their pay revision until such measures stated in Pay Commission Report are
implemented. It has raised a question, whether deferring pay revision approved
by the National Assembly would mean bad precedence and hurts the spirit of the
Constitution. The Opposition had also showed their interest in following the suit, provided this decision doesn't create a bad precedence and contravenes
any law, in the understanding of the government. They have called on government
for the clarification.
Such political dramas,
confusions, clamors,etc. would continue if our politicians are not fed enough
with insights into interpreting laws. They should be able to interpret the
laws, as conceived. Also, there must be way through for the Speaker to seek an
unbiased clarifications from the Supreme Court should there be any, during the
process of deliberations, before the decisions are dubbed ILLEGAL. It is disheartening to see half-baked, haste decisions coming through.
Irrespective of being in
opposition or ruling government or National Council, all are called by a common
name, Member of Parliament. This is striking, it gives a sense of oneness to
act in the good spirit of nation rather than putting dividing lines among
themselves as Government MPs, Opposition MPs and NC MPs.
There should be ways for us
to close the chapter on Political Dramas. We cannot enjoy in the words of GNH surrounded
with Political Dramas, it mirrors not really worth going-ahead of Politics.
Looking forward to see an end to rigging political dramas!
