The tiny Himalayan nation of Bhutan is facing dual threats to their deeply-held culture and beliefs: globalization and more recently, democracy. At the order of King Jigme Singye Wangchuck, the former Kingdom of Bhutan became the world’s newest parliamentary democracy on March 24, 2008, upsetting a highly tradition-bound and culturally-unique people by forcing them to learn to take responsibility for their own governance rather than simply allow a benevolent but absolute monarchy to make every decision affecting their lives. Often referred to as “the last Shangri-La”, this land of barely 700,000 people were ruled as a Buddhist theocracy for over one thousand years, converting to a hereditary monarchy in 1907, which began a century-long process of changing Bhutan from a medieval society to a full democracy. Over the course of that century, King Jigme Singye Wangchuck’s father King Jigme Dorji Wangchuck began reforms as early as 1953 by declaring the Bhutanese people to be citizens rather than serfs and embracing various development projects and reforms, including reaching out to the world community by joining the United Nations in 1971 and domestic reforms such as the establishment of a National Assembly. Upon his son’s accession to the throne, development efforts redoubled with the establishment of formal, compulsory education, the adoption of English as the official language of education, business and government (the predominant language, Dzongkha, remains the official language for
Cline-5
everything else), the development of hydroelectricity projects and tourism to bolster the economy, and becoming the world’s last country to allow television broadcasts and Internet service. The opening of this once closed society to the forces of both economic and cultural globalization has resulted in what many fear to be the beginning of the end of traditional Bhutanese culture as new influences, especially Western ones, take hold, especially among the youth. This accelerated further when, in 2006, the king abdicated his throne to his son Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuck to allow him to gain statecraft skills prior to the adoption of the new constitution and elections in 2008, further stripping away aspects of Bhutanese culture and traditions. Today, the royal family of Bhutan enjoy Head of State status but have little executive power; in fact, the constitution allows a two-thirds majority of both houses of parliament to disband the monarchy entirely, though there is little will to do so as the royalty is beloved and revered by the Bhutanese people (Background note: Bhutan 2010; Bhutan 2011; Goering 2008; Ridge 2008).
The changes wrought by the last three kings have been hard on the Bhutanese psyche. Long accustomed to having the king look out for their every need and to rule benevolently according to the precepts of Buddhist law, the Bhutanese have suddenly been thrust into the twenty-first century with many feeling ill-prepared and quite uneasy with the transition. The Bhutanese have watched with great unease the messy process of democracy
Cline-6
in other nations, especially their neighbors Nepal and India, and many are expressing fears that the unrest and divisiveness seen in these other nations will spill over into their peaceful, unified and cohesive nation. In addition, the turn to democracy has resulted in a renewed call for repatriation of nearly 100,000 culturally Nepalese Bhutanese who were expelled in the early 1990s in a move many describe as a way to maintain cultural purity, a form of ethnic cleansing denounced by many nations around the world (Bajoria 2008; Lamitare 2011; Sengupta 2007).
Perhaps the most jarring element entering into Bhutanese culture is the advent of television and the Internet which are having increasing westernizing influences on this traditionally closed society. Some of these are welcomed, such as the ability to maintain close contact with expatriates or students abroad, increased economic opportunities, and improved health and infrastructure. Others trouble the Bhutanese people a great deal, such as violence in television programs that are being reenacted (sometimes in mock play, sometimes in reality) by the youth, increased drug use in a country that had never had any kind of drug problem, a loss of interest by Bhutanese youth in traditional culture and dress, and the fear that the ground-breaking use of Gross National Happiness (GNH), which according to the Bhutanese constitution places the overall happiness of the people above the more traditional economic calculation of Gross National Product (GDP), may be in danger of going down in tatters. It is this last element of the
Cline-7
effects of globalization and westernization that have most Bhutanese concerned; has the shift to democracy, which the king touted as a requirement to increase overall GNH, actually resulted in increased happiness, or is it hurting the country? Also, are the effects of globalization damaging or destroying traditional culture and values? More than three years after the first elections and nearly a dozen years since the advent of television and the Internet, these are still unanswered questions and one this paper will attempt to clarify (Bajoria 2008; Dorji, T.C. 2009. Magistad 2011; Putzel 2008; Ridge 2008; Schell 2002; Sengupta 2007).
Research
ประเทศเล็ก ๆ ของเทือกเขาหิมาลัยประเทศภูฏานจะหันภัยคุกคามคู่ลึกของพวกเขาThe tiny Himalayan nation of Bhutan is facing dual threats to their deeply- -วัฒนธรรมที่จัดขึ้นและความเชื่อ held culture and beliefs: globalization and more recently, democracy. At the order of King Jigme Singye Wangchuck, the former Kingdom of Bhutan became the world’s newest parliamentary democracy on March 24, 2008, upsetting a highly tradition-bound and culturally-unique people by forcing them to learn to take responsibility for their own governance rather than simply allow a benevolent but absolute monarchy to make every decision affecting their lives. Often referred to as “the last Shangri-La”, this land of barely 700,000 people were ruled as a Buddhist theocracy for over one thousand years, converting to a hereditary monarchy in 1907, which began a century-long process of changing Bhutan from a medieval society to a full democracy. Over the course of that century, King Jigme Singye Wangchuck’s father King Jigme Dorji Wangchuck began reforms as early as 1953 by declaring the Bhutanese people to be citizens rather than serfs and embracing various development projects and reforms, including reaching out to the world community by joining the United Nations in 1971 and domestic reforms such as the establishment of a National Assembly. Upon his son’s accession to the throne, development efforts redoubled with the establishment of formal, compulsory education, the adoption of English as the official language of education, business and government (the predominant language, Dzongkha, remains the official language for
Cline-5
everything else), the development of hydroelectricity projects and tourism to bolster the economy, and becoming the world’s last country to allow television broadcasts and Internet service. The opening of this once closed society to the forces of both economic and cultural globalization has resulted in what many fear to be the beginning of the end of traditional Bhutanese culture as new influences, especially Western ones, take hold, especially among the youth. This accelerated further when, in 2006, the king abdicated his throne to his son Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuck to allow him to gain statecraft skills prior to the adoption of the new constitution and elections in 2008, further stripping away aspects of Bhutanese culture and traditions. Today, the royal family of Bhutan enjoy Head of State status but have little executive power; in fact, the constitution allows a two-thirds majority of both houses of parliament to disband the monarchy entirely, though there is little will to do so as the royalty is beloved and revered by the Bhutanese people (Background note: Bhutan 2010; Bhutan 2011; Goering 2008; Ridge 2008).
The changes wrought by the last three kings have been hard on the Bhutanese psyche. Long accustomed to having the king look out for their every need and to rule benevolently according to the precepts of Buddhist law, the Bhutanese have suddenly been thrust into the twenty-first century with many feeling ill-prepared and quite uneasy with the transition. The Bhutanese have watched with great unease the messy process of democracy
Cline-6
in other nations, especially their neighbors Nepal and India, and many are expressing fears that the unrest and divisiveness seen in these other nations will spill over into their peaceful, unified and cohesive nation. In addition, the turn to democracy has resulted in a renewed call for repatriation of nearly 100,000 culturally Nepalese Bhutanese who were expelled in the early 1990s in a move many describe as a way to maintain cultural purity, a form of ethnic cleansing denounced by many nations around the world (Bajoria 2008; Lamitare 2011; Sengupta 2007).
Perhaps the most jarring element entering into Bhutanese culture is the advent of television and the Internet which are having increasing westernizing influences on this traditionally closed society. Some of these are welcomed, such as the ability to maintain close contact with expatriates or students abroad, increased economic opportunities, and improved health and infrastructure. Others trouble the Bhutanese people a great deal, such as violence in television programs that are being reenacted (sometimes in mock play, sometimes in reality) by the youth, increased drug use in a country that had never had any kind of drug problem, a loss of interest by Bhutanese youth in traditional culture and dress, and the fear that the ground-breaking use of Gross National Happiness (GNH), which according to the Bhutanese constitution places the overall happiness of the people above the more traditional economic calculation of Gross National Product (GDP), may be in danger of going down in tatters. It is this last element of the
Cline-7
effects of globalization and westernization that have most Bhutanese concerned; has the shift to democracy, which the king touted as a requirement to increase overall GNH, actually resulted in increased happiness, or is it hurting the country? Also, are the effects of globalization damaging or destroying traditional culture and values? More than three years after the first elections and nearly a dozen years since the advent of television and the Internet, these are still unanswered questions and one this paper will attempt to clarify (Bajoria 2008; Dorji, T.C. 2009. Magistad 2011; Putzel 2008; Ridge 2008; Schell 2002; Sengupta 2007).
Research
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..