King Jigme Singye Wangchuk of BhutanOp-Ed by Chanda Chhay
A hero could be simply defined as someone who sacrifices his/her own interests for the benefits of others. Last month, I received my subscribed issue of the National Geographic Magazine, which featured an article about a unique action taken by the king of Bhutan—abolish absolute monarchy in favor of democracy.
Without a drop of blood being spilled (which is usually the case for ushering in democracy), or a single voice of demand being heard, King Jigme Singye Wangchuk of Bhutan has made an unprecedented move to liberate his subjects from the grip of dictatorial leadership by giving them democracy and all the freedoms it espouses. In a world where political leaders would do anything to cling to power, King Wangchuk’s action is simply extraordinary. His rational for adapting democracy as a form of governance is based on a noble belief that people’s lives and their destiny are too precious to be left at the mercy of one man’s decisions. “What would happen…..if Bhutan fell into the hands of an evil or incompetent ruler?” he asked, rhetorically.
Never before in human history that a king willingly gives up his power to empower his subjects. This is a classic case of what Plato, a Greek philosopher, called philosopher king, or John Stuart Mills, an English political philosopher, referred to as an enlightened self-interest person—a person who put public interests before those of his/her own.
But King Wangchuk did not stop at enlightened self-interests; he went further to encourage Bhutanese politicians to form political parties and present to the people different political platforms or programs so that they (the people) could select which party or programs best represent their interests. The king also demanded that the state-control media be broken down so that freedom of the press and expression are maintained. And to top it off, King Wangchuk removed himself from politics by abdicating the throne in favor of his son, Oxford educated Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuk, who will be charged with creating a constitutional monarchy and ensuring that his father’s adopted son, Democracy, will survive and flourish.
Within a few months, Bhutanese people will go to the polls to cast their votes and, at the same time, celebrate the birth of their baby democracy. Whether this baby democracy will survive or not, only time can tell. But what is certain about Bhutan’s experiment with democracy is that a hero was born; and that his name, Jigme Singye Wangchuk, will be forever remembered by the people of Bhutan and the world.
Chanda Chhay
Without a drop of blood being spilled (which is usually the case for ushering in democracy), or a single voice of demand being heard, King Jigme Singye Wangchuk of Bhutan has made an unprecedented move to liberate his subjects from the grip of dictatorial leadership by giving them democracy and all the freedoms it espouses. In a world where political leaders would do anything to cling to power, King Wangchuk’s action is simply extraordinary. His rational for adapting democracy as a form of governance is based on a noble belief that people’s lives and their destiny are too precious to be left at the mercy of one man’s decisions. “What would happen…..if Bhutan fell into the hands of an evil or incompetent ruler?” he asked, rhetorically.
Never before in human history that a king willingly gives up his power to empower his subjects. This is a classic case of what Plato, a Greek philosopher, called philosopher king, or John Stuart Mills, an English political philosopher, referred to as an enlightened self-interest person—a person who put public interests before those of his/her own.
But King Wangchuk did not stop at enlightened self-interests; he went further to encourage Bhutanese politicians to form political parties and present to the people different political platforms or programs so that they (the people) could select which party or programs best represent their interests. The king also demanded that the state-control media be broken down so that freedom of the press and expression are maintained. And to top it off, King Wangchuk removed himself from politics by abdicating the throne in favor of his son, Oxford educated Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuk, who will be charged with creating a constitutional monarchy and ensuring that his father’s adopted son, Democracy, will survive and flourish.
Within a few months, Bhutanese people will go to the polls to cast their votes and, at the same time, celebrate the birth of their baby democracy. Whether this baby democracy will survive or not, only time can tell. But what is certain about Bhutan’s experiment with democracy is that a hero was born; and that his name, Jigme Singye Wangchuk, will be forever remembered by the people of Bhutan and the world.
Chanda Chhay
15 comments:
Outstanding person.
Full democracy system and full freedom of free speeches are very important to develop the country both economically and socially foe a harmony society. We can experience this problem in Cambodia when this country was being ruled by a dictatorship like Pol Pot and Hun Sen regime.
Without peace agreement in 1991 to allow Cambodia to have multi-parties parliament, Cambodia would be a farm of animals ruled by tiger or a Lion.
My beloved friends!
Do ya guys simply agree with me that our beloved former king, Sihanouk abdicated the throne in favor of his father and not unselfishly launched himself in pursuit of absolute power, since his status as king ruled, but did not allow him to enter the poliSickal arena nor to have power?
Did he is our beloved Mighty hero, too?
I agreed with what you said, 4:14, but I like to go on to say it was the right thing to do.
Look, each country is different and unique, and no one should try to use cookie cutter to try to clone Cambodia to be like any other country. We got our own history, and we don't want others'.
In Asia:
Cambodia, Japan, Thailand, Nepal, Malaysia are Constitutional Monarchy countries [now Bhutan]
Brunei is absolute Monarchy
In Europe:
Andorra, Belgium, Denmark, Monaco, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, UK [Queen Elizabeth II is Queen of United Kingdom also head of Commonwealth of nations consisted on 53 independent sovereign states], Spain are Constitutional Monarchy countries
Middle Eastern:
Jordan, Kuwait, Bahrain are Constitutional Monarchy countries.
Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates are absolute Monarchy countries.
Oceanic:
Tonga is constitutional Monarchy country.
So the majority of kingdoms are in favor of Constitutional Monarchy where King/Queen are head of state [Reign but do not rules/govern the country].
Many people are still argue why many kingdoms opted for Constitutional Monarchy.
Very admirable King of Phutan who are outstandingly emblematic of enlightened-interest.
Anywhere has leader as scholar, that place will experience true peace and development.
Phutan is fortunate to have one of the scholar.
If you learn about "Gross National Happiness" policy of Phutan, you will be astonishingly.
Comparing Cambodia to this tiny country of Phutan in the hill of Himalaya mountain, in more than 5 decades Cambodia is unfortunate to have any scholar-leader.
Presently, Cambodia has only the ruthless, unethical and power-thirst leader.
KY
Need help moving to Phutan?
Don't you know?
Some Country they have King but Khmer have KING KONG!!! LOL...
Well, we used to have lot of Kings also, but they kept on losing our land to foreigners.
Thus, it's time for a change, and thus, it's time to go King Kong.
Any objection?
Without the Monarchy, your country Cambodia would have been dead for a long time ago.
Your people are too ignorant and too dumb about what's going on.
Wangchuk did it because his country has no enemy posing threat, and if you think Cambodia can do that, Vietnamese and T'ai will be happy to tickle Hun Sen in a second.
Geeesss these Cambo are so dumb, no wonder they are in hell.
Well, we don't mind losing our land to our brother in a dispute, but no way we want to lose it to the monarchy goddess with blue eye.
Look, brothers fight for inheritance is not uncommon, and one of the two will win the inheritance from judgment or whatever, but for foreigner to end up with their inheritance is just outrageous. Have anyone has ever heard of that before?
And what about you, if you were parent, your kids fighting for your inheritance, and foreigner end up grabbing it. How would you feel about this, huh?
Speak for yourself 6:36 AM.
Vietnamese is not Khmer's brother but Thai yes. Unless you are Vietnamese who has tried to make sense to yourself.
Yeah, but Vietnamese is still a lot closer to us than blue-eyed people.
3 15 pm, it is not about the distance it is about the close culture. Cambodian and T'ai are matched and they both are neighbors. Vietnamese and Chinese are matched.
I met this Khmer King and he has no blue eyes. What are you talking about? He looks Chinese or Japanese or a normal Khmer I saw in Cambodia.
This racism will go nowhere.
Post a Comment