October 28, 2024
THIMPHU – In a concerning development for Bhutan’s democratic principles, the directive mandating all government communications through the Policy and Planning Division’s media focal persons raises serious constitutional questions. This bureaucratic barrier not only challenges media freedom but also contradicts His Majesty’s vision of participatory democracy, particularly evident in His Majesty’s recent call during the Australian visit for open dialogue on GMC. The restriction, channeling information through officials with limited authority, threatens the constitutional cornerstone of transparent governance- adding salt to already wounded media.
The new communication restrictions fundamentally clash with our constitutional framework. Article 7 provides a trilogy of interconnected rights: Section 2 guarantees freedom of speech and expression, Section 3 enshrines the right to information, and Section 5 explicitly protects “freedom of the press, radio and television and other forms of dissemination of information.” These rights, coupled with the establishment of Bhutan as a Democratic Constitutional Monarchy where sovereign power resides with the people, demand transparent governance. Article 20 provides the dual mandate for good governance and the Lhengye Zhungtshog’s obligation to ensure democratic administration.
Media’s democratic function transcends simple information sharing, fundamentally connecting to citizens’ voting rights under Article 7, Section 6. When MOICE creates artificial barriers between media and government officials, it hampers voters’ access to unfiltered information from elected representatives, thereby undermining their constitutional right to make informed electoral decisions.
The restriction creates a dangerous precedent where bureaucratic procedures obstruct constitutional rights. MOICE’s mandate cannot extend to controlling the fundamental relationship between the press and government officials. Such overreach not only exceeds MOICE’s authority but also undermines the constitutional framework of democratic governance.
The implementation of restrictions through the SOP raises fundamental concerns about administrative overreach. This creates a dangerous precedent where administrative procedures bypass constitutional rights. The constitutional mandate under Article 20, Section 6 establishes a fundamental democratic covenant between public officials and citizens. Cabinet Ministers bear a direct constitutional obligation to foster democratic administration, which inherently requires ensuring transparency, accessibility, and direct accountability to the people they serve. As leaders whose salaries come from public funds, Cabinet Ministers and bureaucrats are, first and foremost, public servants. This creates an intrinsic duty to remain accessible and answerable to citizens, rather than positioning themselves behind bureaucratic barriers. The phrase “democratic values and principles” explicitly encompasses open communication and public scrutiny, affirming citizens’ rights to question, engage with, and hold accountable their elected representatives and appointed officials.
The constitutional requirement for “efficient civil administration” means eliminating unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles that impede direct communication between public servants and citizens. Adding intermediary layers contradicts this efficiency mandate and undermines the spirit of democratic governance. This constitutional provision creates a positive obligation – Cabinet Ministers must actively promote these democratic principles, not merely allow them to exist passively. Any policy that restricts direct public engagement will violate the fundamental rights of people. PPD as an information gatekeeper, the government creates unnecessary bottlenecks that sanitize public discourse and delay crucial information flow, undermining the constitutional vision of democratic transparency.
The Article 7, Section 23 of Constitution provides a clear pathway for legal challenge, empowering “all persons” to seek judicial enforcement of constitutional rights. As legal persons, media organizations like Kuensel can petition the Supreme Court or High Court to contest MOICE’s directive as an unconstitutional impediment to press freedom. When administrative actions threaten to erode fundamental rights, the courts must step in to restore the constitutional balance.