Democracy and Democratization among Tibetans in Exile

Abstract

This paper analyzes how democracy is conceptualized and operationalized among Tibetan exiles based on fieldwork conducted among Tibetans in Dharamsala during 1994 and in two settlements in Nepal throughout 1995. The Tibetan exiles are in a democratic transition, yet their transition resembles much more of a “muddling through” than a linear progression, as they struggle to interpret democratic values in the context of their own worldview and political circumstances. The Tibetan exiles' case can be interpreted as a new variation on the Asian democracy debate, with a focus on how authoritarian and popular choice interrelate in an actually existing democratic system. For the Tibetans, the issue is the place of the “enlightened mind” in modern forms of governance. The author finds that the exile context has both facilitated and limited the Tibetans' reform efforts.

Constructing a Tibetan demos in exile

“…Thus, they believe that the old Tibetan idea that aristocracy and clergy were better equipped to rule than ordinary Tibetans had survived in exile. The observation that Tibetans lean toward the ideal of elite rule despite the exile-elite's professed ideal of popular rule has also been noted by Frechette (2007) and Roemer (2008) and can be supported by my own findings as well.…”

“…Nonetheless, Tibetan critics lament that after 50 years of exile many Tibetans still neither understand nor practice 'true democracy'. Assessments by Western scholars Ardley (2003), Frechette (2007), Roemer (2008) and McConnell (2009) also identify several democratic deficits in the Tibetan exile-community, some of which Tibetan critics recognize as well. Examples include factionalism, religion's interference in the sphere of politics, the undemocratic position of the Dalai Lama, and the lack of formal opposition, accountability and people's participation.…”

India’s China strategy under Modi continuity in the management of an asymmetric rivalry

“…While India’s official position is that the Dalai Lama is an honored guest and that the Tibetan exiles are not allowed to engage in political activities (because India recognizes Tibet as a part of China), New Delhi has implicitly allowed the Tibetans to conduct some political activities. While an incipient process of democratization of this community began in the 1960s, it attained significance in 2001 when almost half of the exiles directly elected the head of the government-in-exile (“Prime Minister” or “President”) (Frechette 2007 : 112). 6 The role of the government-in-exile has become more significant since 2011 when the Dalai Lama gave up his political role as the head of this community to the democratically elected Prime Minister/President (even as he remains the spiritual leader of the Tibetan movement) (Yardley and Wong 2011 ).…”

Burma in Diaspora: A Preliminary Research Note on the Politics of Burmese Diasporic Communities in Asia

“…In doing so, a diaspora creates a transnational civic and political space that ignores borders and in which knowledge-sharing and the learning of democratization practices in exile are essential. Comparatively, the regional literature has recently shown great interest in Kashmiri, East Timorese, Tamil and Tibetan "long-distance" nationalism and pro-democracy activism (Ellis and Khan 1998;Wise 2004;Wayland 2004;Frechette 2007). In the case of Myanmar, it can be argued that some Burmese diasporic movements have proved quite influential in mobilizing not only their communities in exile but also some Western states and international organizations (Dale 2011;Williams 2012).…”