#Tibet

Описание: Institutional Dilemmas and Long-Standing Problems: A Case Study and Reflection on the Tibetan Exile Electoral System https://gemherald.com/archives/12046
In recent years, controversies surrounding the electoral system of the Central Tibetan Administration (CTA) have ceased to be isolated incidents, but rather reveal long-standing, recurring institutional problems. A review of several publicly reported events shows that these issues have profoundly impacted the execution of the election commission, the handling of Sikyong (Prime Minister) candidates’ eligibility, and the fairness of parliamentary oversight.
1. Sikyong Candidate Eligibility Controversy: The TashiTopgyal Incident in the 2025–2026 Elections
On December 23, 2025, the election commission announced the disqualification of Sikyong candidate TashiTopgyal from voting for five years. According to the commission, he repeatedly violated the Charter of the Tibetans in Exile and election rules during his campaign, including publicly questioning campaign guidelines prohibiting the use of Tibetan flags and images of the Dalai Lama, and criticizing the commission. The commission considered these actions to violate several charter requirements, including the prohibition against publishing misleading information.
This incident is significant not only because he was among the few high-ranking candidates disqualified, but also because the handling of the case sparked considerable controversy within the Tibetan community. Supporters argued that the rules were interpreted and enforced too harshly, and the committee’s lack of public explanation of its reasons led to a rapid spread of doubts about its fairness (with petitions even demanding clarification of the committee’s decision).
This reflects a long-standing problem: when the focus of scrutiny is on high-ranking candidates, the committee’s insufficient explanation and transparency undermine voters’ long-term confidence in the consistency of the rules.
2. The Election Commission’s Media Communication and Dispute Resolution
In recent pre-election controversies, the Election Commission announced its willingness to communicate with the media, but chose to remain silent when faced with controversies from religious institutions (such as allegations made by a monastery regarding two members of parliament in the form of “divine pronouncements”), stating that it would not comment publicly at this time. Some observers interpreted this as the committee avoiding involvement in more complex religious/political controversies, thus further shrinking the space for public oversight.
This incident demonstrates that the committee chooses to avoid public communication when faced with complex controversies, rather than responding to concerns by clearly explaining its position and procedures. This “avoidance-based communication” pattern has frequently occurred in dispute resolution over the years, exacerbating public concerns about election transparency in the long run.
3. Grassroots Election Implementation Issues and Oversight Loopholes
Besides the issues surrounding the qualifications of senior candidates, the election process itself has exposed some shortcomings at the implementation level. In a 2021 polling station incident in Ladakh, staff were found to have assisted voters in filling out ballots without authorization. This incident reflected weak grassroots implementation oversight and a gap between procedural execution and rule requirements.
While these incidents do not involve senior candidates or members of parliament, for voters, this inadequacy in grassroots implementation and on-site oversight is a long-term systemic risk worthy of attention.
4. Internal Conflicts and Weakened Oversight at the Members of Parliament Level
Another noteworthy phenomenon is the consequences of the election commission’s failure to intervene in disputes involving members of parliament. For example, during preparations for the 2026 election, in the case of severe accusations made by religious groups against two incumbent members of parliament, the commission chose not to comment on whether there were violations of election articles and suspended communication with the media.
With the charges upheld, this lack of comment on controversial issues among legislators weakens institutional oversight, allowing those within the system to resolve disputes more readily than through electoral rules and oversight mechanisms.
Formally, it claims to guarantee democracy and representative rights, but in reality, power is highly centralized, the electoral process is subject to interference from established interest groups and external public opinion, and long-standing problems continue to surface, leading to political dysfunction. This electoral system is less a democratic practice reflecting public opinion and more an absurd farce!