Agreeing to Disagree

Agreeing to diagree - That would be the key phrase in a democratic system, especially in parliamentary discussions where opinions are expressed for and against an issue, an amendment, a proposal put up for deliberation. In doing so, the varying views from the different sides give an overall picture that finally enlightens a collectively agreeable decision, benefit a whole nation and its citizens as an end goal.

The discussions and the resulting voting patterns in the recent Entitlement and Service Conditions Amendment Bill witnessed the opposition unanimously voting against the endorsement of a clause that would allow the commissioners of the constitutional offices to go back to civil service once their term is over. Under the present system, a person appointed as the holder, member and commissioner of a constitutional office has to resign from their previous office before taking up a constitutional post.

All valid points on two sides were expressed passionately, until finally the opposition’s united stand had to consent reluctant defeat against the majority votes in favor of endorsing the clause in the bill.

While it was the express belief on the side of the majority voters and speakers that bringing such a change in the bill would help the nation retain a good lot of capable personnel in the civil service, which would otherwise lose out in numbers every new term, when there is a change in term.

Equally heavy in weight is the view that ‘the decision would be a breeding ground for conflict of interest.’ And it is not entirely unrealistic to say that constitutional office holders are bounded by the civil service rules, and they would remain directly answerable to the government of the day and not their ‘missions and visions.’

Short of flying chairs and fist fights, the Bhutanese parliament is also seeing members getting vocally resentful of contrasting opinions expressed.

The finance minister’s proposition to the opposition to opt for taking matters to court instead of repeatedly picking on words like ’unconstitutional’ was high annoyance expressed generally under veiled submission to the house.

Those watching parliamentary discussions and keenly observing the democratic process, have said that regardless of the logic, substance and ‘general good’ for which members discuss matters, it is also unavoidably getting conspicuous that things are highly tinged with party loyalty and therefore operational on party lines.

The institution of democracy was ushered with much appreciation and promise, receiving high accolades from the international sphere, while it without need for mention is a sacred national undertaking, so to say considering the manner in which it was ‘gifted from the throne’ seeing its long term general welfare for its citizens.

Putting the nature of the institution at the core of inspection it would be very normal to witness 50 shades of gray, or of things black and white. What remains crucially essential is that the will of a nation not be diluted in the intricacies of politics.

Published as Business Bhutan Editorial on November 29, 2014