Democracy in the Tibetan Diaspora
The Evolution of Politics in Exile and Why Tibet is Unique
The Central Tibetan Administration in India has been trying to democratise the almost 200,000 Tibetans in exile since the 1960s. How successful has this process been?
Democracy did not exist in Tibet before 1959 when the Dalai Lama and 80,000 others departed for India says Israel Epstein in his 1983 book Tibet Transformed. Allen Carlsson of the East West Institute explains in his 2004 book Beiging's Tibet Policy: Securing Sovereignty and Legitimacy,that while the Chinese government have said that the exiles' attempts to bring democracy to their community is a cynical ploy to curry Western sympathy, the Central Tibetan Administration (CTA) in India insists that it is part of a process of modernizing their population.
Government in Exile
The CTA provide as many of the services of government as is possible while living under foreign jurisdiction. Their courts can not, for example, do more than mediate in civil affairs. However, the CTA has an executive, a legislature and a judiciary and many of the departments and organs of a normal government according to the CTA's 2001 publication Introduction to Central Tibetan Administration. The Departments of Education and Information and International Relations have been notably successful in the achievement of their missions.
However, as with many young administrations the Tibetans have encountered the problems of an apolitical electorate and an underdeveloped political class. Efforts are being made by the CTA to inform the geographically scattered electorate about the candidates but many Tibetans feel that they do not try hard enough and that the process is under funded. Jane Ardley (in her 2003 article, "Learning the Art of Democracy? Continuity and change in the Tibetan Government in exile") suggests that the CTA's belief in unity has, problematically, led to their banning all political parties. The Dalai Lama is still the unelected head of government and several government officials are appointed directly by him.
Democracy Imposed From Above?
That said, the main drive to ratify a constitution and to withdraw the Dalai Lama from politics has come from the man himself. Indeed it was only at his insistence that an article of the constitution allowing for his impeachment was kept in place. Representatives of the Tibetan Centre for Human Rights and Democracy told me that there is, however, resistance amongst the exile community to any efforts to dismantle his power but he believes that this is not conducive to fostering democracy amongst the people.
What we see then in the exiles' case is, bizarrely, non-party rule with democracy being pressed from above by a popular charismatic leader. That this has not drawn the attention of more political scientists is puzzling says Ardley. After all, in many African, Latin American and Central Asian states the problem is persistently the reverse; fledgling democracies are sat upon by non-democratic, one party regimes.
While the CTA upholds the notion of non-violent resistance to Chinese rule and continues efforts to seek autonomy within China it is likely that there is far more to be gained by pushing democracy on the community as this adds credibility to these ideals. Ardley, however, speculates that this approach may be alienating many within the community. Like any people the Tibetans experience regional differences, differences in political opinions and different social needs. Arguably a non-party government does not do enough to appreciate this diversity.
The story of the exiles' democratization process is largely a successful one. To have established the apparatuses of government effectively and to have ratified a constitution is more than many communities achieve under more favorable circumstances. Nevertheless, until the electorate take a greater interest in the political process allowing the Dalai Lama to step back, and until the CTA broadens the scope of what it represents the exiles will remain an infant democracy.
 |
 |
 |
