Camera shy

Originally published in Himal Southasian, July '09

In a move to bolster Bhutan’s nascent democracy, the National Council announced on 25 June that all that all their sessions will be broadcasted live on BBS TV for the country’s viewing pleasure. Quite a landmark for a country formally wracked with censorship, where official ‘information’ had an uneasy relationship with the truth. But this advance has been checked by the National Assembly which, in the face of considerable media pressure, has refused for its discussions to be aired. The public will have to make do with press releases. Only the opening and closing ceremonies, Lyonchhoen’s report, audit, and budget reports are to be broadcasted.

The NA were firm in defending their stance, claiming hard-nosed pragmatism and ignoring the issue of accountability altogether. In a press conference held on the same day, Ugyen Tenzin, an NA spokesman and Haa MP, stated that live TV coverage would endanger efficiency. In experiments with live coverage in the past, he claimed, many MP were unable to concentrate or contribute effectively, their efforts turned solely towards crowd-pleasing. It also, allegedly, prevented MPs from commenting frankly on the proposed bills for fear of adverse public opinion. Live TV would furthermore greatly prolong the process and hike up daily allowances and sitting fees for MPs. He dismissed accusations that this move was undemocratic and mocking of the right to information, stressing that – there being nothing to hide – they would hold a press conference every day on the NA discussions. The media, he maintained, was not the enemy. Merely a nuisance, it seems.

The ruling Druk Phuensum Tshogpa party have fallen well short of their election promises; weighed down by corruption and incompetence, not a single development project has been approved, and many underway have been delayed or simply halted. Efficiency is, undeniably, an issue. But the argument that a few TV cameras would grind the country to a halt is overly evasive and betrays the fact that, with over a year of democracy behind Bhutan, the political class has yet to internalise a genuinely democratic ethos. And the image Tenzin puts forward of unprincipled showmen on the one hand, and meek politicians shying from public scrutiny on the other, hardly inspires confidence towards a government that is, after all, answerable to the Bhutanese people.

But these are early days. Exposed to the activities of the NC, the people of Bhutan will become increasingly conscious of their own, central part in the political process. Newly emboldened, they will demand greater transparency and accountability from their politicians; the NA’s stance will become increasingly hard to justify. The press can only be kept out in the cold for so long.