The Tragedy of the Commons

The recurring reports of the most insidious man-made virus, widely known as Corruption, across mainstream and social media remind one of Garrett Hardin’s Tragedy of the Commons. 

No matter how moral and respectable a nation may be, how spiritual and holy its people claim to be, and how generous and philanthropic the rich and powerful are, I believe, there exists no place on Earth that has escaped the clutch of this artificial virus. The most common symptoms of this viral infection include bribery, nepotism, favouritism, misuse of power, embezzlement of public funds, rigged contracts, political patronage, and exploitation of public office for private gain. 

When its infection spreads silently and relentlessly, it weakens the health of our institutions, erodes the fabric of public trust, and leaves societies exposed to inequality, inefficiency, and decay.

 

Tragedy of the Commons

The Tragedy of the Commons refers to a situation where something that is shared by everyone (e.g., land, water, or public fund) is overused or exhausted because individuals act in self-interest for a short-term gain. 

The key message of this phenomenon is that when individual selfishness rules over collective good, it is everyone that eventually suffers (hence tragedy). It is a moral and social issue that reflects how human greed, corruption, and neglect can destroy what we all depend on together. 

In today’s world, this analogy can be used to understand the health of our public systems, institutions, and national wealth. For example, when individuals or groups take more than their fair share or use what belongs to everyone for their own gain, it is the society that suffers at the end. 

Modern Examples 

Misuse of public funds. 

When officials or influential individuals (e.g., politicians) use public money and natural resources for personal enrichment through corrupt practices, they shrink or deplete the nation’s shared wealth and resources. While the powerful grow richer through such practices, it is only the poor and innocent who suffer, losing access to basic services such as health care, education, and infrastructure. 

Exploitation of public institutions. 

Another example is when people in authority use their connections to secure jobs, contracts, or privileges for friends and relatives. When a few individuals engage in such self-centred practices, it is the public trust and merit-based systems that are victimised and eventually forced to collapse. When such practices keep happening, institutions lose their credibility and efficiency.

Consequences 

The scar left by this viral infection can be deep and long-lasting. The shared resources that should serve everyone will become exhausted. 

The gap (inequality) between haves and have-nots will widen. This means, while a small number of people gain wealth and power, it will be the majority that would be left with fewer opportunities and weaker systems of support.

Public trust and confidence will collapse and decay, and people will start losing faith in anything that requires collective action. By then, institution of any kind will lose their purpose and efficiency. 

If left unchecked, the most non-curable consequence in the society would be its long-term instability. As inequality and mistrust grow, societies face protests, unrest, and even violence, social phenomena that are not very new to every nation these days. 

As Hardin cautioned, when the commons are left unguarded against human greed, collective ruin becomes inevitable. Unless societies develop moral antibodies through integrity, transparency, or shared responsibility, the tragedy of the commons will continue to unfold as everyday drama within our society.

 

The Inconvenient Truth?

 

 

Astronaut Garan’s perspective is a striking metaphor, yet it does not leave me enchanted. Not because I dislike the astronaut or his opinion, but some truths such as this are already known to us. These facts are clearly visible and tangible, even as we stand here on Earth. Obviously, I can easily understand problems faced on earth, without even travelling to any part of the space. 

My question is, 

Do we really need to leave Earth to see what’s broken? 

While his message is thoughtful considering his perspectives from outer space, at its heart, it only echoes the same pressing discomfort that urgently calls to confront our misplaced priorities. 

 

The Lies We Live

As stated earlier, I do not feel a need for one to travel to another orbit, only to realise that Earth is whole. Also, it is well known to us that earth is the only planet that is suitable to call our home. Sadly, we witness our planet increasingly getting compartmentalised and living fractured lives. Using Garan’s lines, there are no borders from space. But, ironically, man-made borders have become the sources of tensions and conflicts on earth. 

The greatest threats to humanity today are not natural disasters, but heinous man-made catastrophes. Who creates wars, inequality, environmental degradation, and the climate crisis? These are not miscarriage of nature, but purposeful consequences impregnated by human greed and ego.

Wars displace millions, annihilate infrastructure, and leave behind strings of trauma that survives for generations. Famine is not always born of drought, but these days, it turns to be another illegitimate offspring of conflict and political manipulation. Economic sanctions are always conceived in the womb of corruptions, abhorrence, and dominance to strangulate civilian populations.

At the heart of it all lies immutable DNA of hypocrisy. Nations that declare the loudest to uphold world peace manufacture proxy wars, aggravate arms races, and engineer regime changes. Institutions borne to uphold peace are suffocating and struggling to challenge on actions launched by superpowers. Climate agreements designed to combat climate change are handcuffed by national interests. Each change in leadership reshuffles global priorities, unleashing tsunamis that erodes global progress, and flood the world with erosion of instability and inconsistency.  

The real inconvenient truth is all about changing our mindset and not the climate change or natural disasters. We know what must change, but we resist because it threatens our ego, our comfort, our profit, and our power. We are, indeed, living a lie.

At times, thinking of these, I wish those who exploit the world with their power, ego, and money find another place to live and never return 😠. 

Power Rules But Wisdom Leads

 

I have always been consumed by the thought that the temporary seats of war and famine had been permanently removed from the table of human decision-making. But I was mistaken. 

With daily news of explosions, detonations, and killings, it is suffocating to see that this world is still contaminated by those who believe that leadership is demonstrated through visibility, control, and influence. 

Leaders of this kind make decisions not necessarily for peace, but to parade their ego and manifest hubristic pride. In the name of defence, they launch missiles which, in reality is to flaunt their illusion of supremacy. Sanctions are brutally imposed as tools of control and not with conscience. Flags, which was long used as emblems of shared identity has lost its soul, because it is increasingly used as markers of claimed territory drawn against perceived enemies. 

These self-styled leaders hardly embody the spirit of their nations. They treat their countries as personal trophies or weapons, using them to compete for dominance, rather than to serve or safeguard their people. Under the banner of sovereignty, they send thousands to the frontlines, to kill and to be killed, often at the expense of the innocents in the process. Under the guise of service to the nation, they exercise control.

And the cost is immense not just in terms of losing hundreds of thousands of guiltless lives, but in damaging trust, shattering futures, and suffocating the planet.

This often makes me think, what makes a good leader? 

Is it the one shaped by dominance and driven by the hunger for legacy? Or is it the one who rises not from ego or conquest but through empathy and conscience?

 

The Myths of Modern Leadership

We have read the histories of world wars and the leaders whose egos and lust for dominance unleashed unimaginable destruction. Yet rather than learning from these devastating errors that wars are curse upon humanity because it is largely ignited by the self-serving ambitions of the few, we appear to have learned very little. 

In fact, some leaders of today’s world continue to mistake leadership for dominance and control. The myth of their leadership is based on their ability to start wars, impose sanctions, sway opinions, and command global attention. Such heartless leaders often forget that this kind of power, though loud and forceful, often lacks depth and conscience because they prioritise strategy over sincerity and ambition over empathy. 

Perhaps these leaders are consciously ignorant about the consequences their leadership brings. For example, the protests in the streets, the shedding of innocent blood, and the rising cries of the harmless people are largely the outcomes of bad leadership. 

They know that power, when built on fear and control, is fleeting. Look at some countries, where leaders are even hunted once their terms (political/official) end, and they are no longer protected by the illusion of their office and titles. For those who are still alive, they live in isolation behind layers of security,  imprisoned by the very fear they once imposed on others. 

And yet, they persist, not out of ignorance, but out of the refusal to wound their pride. They protect their ego at all costs, even as nations crumble beneath them. They do not lead, but still they rule. And still not with wisdom, but with the brittle armour of dominance.

At a time when the world is obsessed with Leadership of Dominance, I am always reminded of and feel blessed of our Bhutanese leadership, particularly the role of our Kings for its distinct charisma. Rooted in Buddhist philosophy and guided by a unique approach to modernisation that balances tradition with the well-being of its people at its core, it stands in stark contrast to global models. What our leaders may lack in global clout or strategic dominance, they make up with the Leadership of Conscience.

 

Leadership of Conscience

By Leadership of Conscience, I refer to a form of leadership guided not by personal ambition, force, or manipulation, but by an inner moral compass that possess a deep sense of right and wrong. It is a form of leadership that emerges from integrity, empathy, compassion, and a commitment to serve others, even when it is inconvenient, unpopular, or costly. 

A Leadership of Conscience prioritises service over status, wisdom over wealth, people over power, and peace over pride. Consequently, a leader of conscience upholds these principles and serve accordingly to achieve their outcomes. 

Since its establishment in 1907, the Monarchs of Bhutan have consistently exemplified the Leadership of Conscience. Their style of leadership has always been steered with compassion, humility, and long-term vision centred on the wellbeing of the people. 

As a Bhutanese citizen, I feel privileged to have been blessed with such leadership of conscience which is insanely rare and vital these days. Although such leaderships do not always make headlines, but it changes lives in quiet, lasting ways. Perhaps this is one reason why Bhutan continues to thrive under a monarchy system, much like a handful of other Asian nations in the likes of Japan, Thailand, and Cambodia.

Having born and grown up during the times of His Majesty the 4^th King’s reign (June 2, 1972 – December 6, 2006), I can elaboratively express how such leaderships are cherished and eternal in the memories of their citizens. 

In 2008, the Great Fourth, King Jigme Singye Wangchuck, took the unprecedented step of abdicating the golden throne to usher democracy in Bhutan. People across the nation raised their concerns that the Kingdom’s continued stability, peace, and economic progress nurtured under the monarchy system might get weakened or eroded with the arrival of democratic ideals. Yet, the Great Fourth introduced a Democratic Constitutional Monarchy as a precious gift from the throne to the people. 

I fondly recall the Great Fourth addressing students during his school visits, emphasising that the future of our nation lies in the hands of the younger generations, while consistently imparting the timeless values of service, wisdom, loyalty, humility, and sacred responsibility.

While at the same time, he portrayed leadership not as a personal privilege but as a sacred responsibility. His visions for the country, embodied in the profound idea of Gross National Happiness, environmental stewardship, and the preservation of distinct age-old culture, are still celebrated, locally and globally. Such is the legacy that leadership of conscience creates. Bhutan may be small, but through leaders like the Great Fourth, it reminds the world of a timeless truth that leadership is not what one takes, but what one gives.

 

Talking about his selflessness and visionary leadership, the Great Fourth, reminded that a nation’s strength must not rest solely on the shoulders of one leader (referring to a King). He called upon the people to take charge of their destiny, to lead, and to shape their future based on their unique potential and aspirations. He cautioned the people that while it may feel reassuring to live under a wise and benevolent monarch, the real test of a leadership lies in the risk that power may one day be inherited by someone who does not serve in the interest of the people. Therefore, not speaking as a father, the Great Fourth affirmed with conviction that the present King (erstwhile a crown prince) embodies the ideals of farsighted vision wisdom, and humility and that he will serve for the welfare of the nation even if he steps down from the golden throne. 

 

Continuing the Legacy 

It did not take long for the citizens to trust the words of the Great Fourth, for we experienced the same radiance of compassion and care when the present King ascended the golden throne. In fact, the transition of monarchical power was so seamless that it passed almost unnoticed. What we had been blessed with under our benevolent monarchs continued, perhaps even stronger, under His Majesty’s vibrant and visionary rule.

 

The Gelephu Mindfulness City (GMC) that recently became the global phenomenon, serves as a fitting example of how the legacy of Leadership of Conscience is being carried forward. This royal vision as announced during the National Day celebration on December 17, 2023, is a bold undertaking towards building Bhutan as a dynamic economic hub. Considering the rapid economic transformation of South Asia, His Majesty said that the GMC will serve as a Special Administrative Region (SAR), creating a flexible, autonomous zone to attract foreign investments aligned with national values. In doing so, it is expected to enhance opportunities at home by fostering investment, job creation, and infrastructure development. 

Recognising the GMC as a noble and long-term royal vision to build a prosperous and sustainable Bhutan, Bhutanese people from all corners of the world have responded to His Majesty’s call on National Day with wholehearted support. This overwhelming response is hardly surprising, given Bhutan’s enduring tradition of Tha-Damtshig between the leader and the people and the Kingdom’s deeply rooted culture of voluntary service. Tha-damtshig is an indigenous Bhutanese concept that embodies a profound sense of affection, kinship, duty, and reciprocal responsibility in human relationships.

Take, for instance, the construction of the international airport at the GMC, which is being funded entirely by the Bhutanese people through bond subscriptions. True to His Majesty’s words during the National Day address, His Majesty has personally led the initiative, setting an example by involving the princes, despite their tender age, in contributing their labour. This act not only demonstrates the importance of national service but also instils a deep understanding of the responsibilities that come with such a noble undertaking. His Majesty’s direct involvement reflects a leadership of conscience, one that leads not by command, but by conviction, empathy, and moral example. It is a leadership rooted in service, integrity, and a deep sense of national duty.

 

My Impressions 

I believe that the world today is not short of leaders. We have no scarcity of individuals who are capable, articulate, and well-educated. Yet, what the world deeply lacks is wisdom in those who lead.

Despite the remarkable progress in science and technology, advancements that are deemed make humanity connected and the world more liveable,  we find ourselves more fragmented than ever. Boundaries have grown sharper, and divisions based on religion or regionalism have deepened. This is not because we lack intelligence, but because power, greed, and the thirst for dominance have outpaced our moral growth.

What we often fail to understand is that leadership, like all worldly positions, is temporary. No matter how powerful, no matter how enduring it may seem in the present, the authority to rule is always bound by time. However, what truly endures is not how long one holds power, but how one uses it. The nature of one’s leadership which includes one’s character, intent, and consequence, leaves an imprint that history does not erase.

To quote an example, I have never lived during the lifetimes of Adolf Hitler, Napoleon Bonaparte, Genghis Khan, Alexander the Great, Mao Zedong, Joseph Stalin, Winston Churchill, or Benito Mussolini. And yet, I hear of them not out of fondness, but the history refuses to erase what has been written. They may not still hold the power, but their actions have shaped the world in irreversible ways. Their leaderships were temporary, but the impacts of their leadership are permanent. 

His Majesty the King with the Prime Minister behind at GMC airport construction

Her Majesty The Gyaltsuen at the GMC airport site

Their Royal Highnesses Gyalsey Jigme Namgyel and Gyalsey Ugyen Wangchuck at the GIA site

Filtering or Fostering? Rethinking Quality of Education in Bhutan

 

The Ministry of Education and Skills Development (MoESD) has recently announced that they are going to reinstate cut-off point for Year 10 students which the previous government has removed. 

The cut-off point regulated by the Bhutan Council for School Examination and Assessment (BCSEA), now under the MoESD determines students' eligibility to transition from Year 10 to Year 11 after appearing the Bhutan Certificate of Secondary Education (BCSE). Students who meet this cut-off threshold (percentage) continue in public schools, while others opt for private schools, Vocational Education Training (VET) institutes, or some becoming high school dropouts.

The reinstatement of such policy presents both benefits and challenges to Bhutan’s emerging education system, considering the inconsistent changes introduced by different political governments after every 5 years. Having worked as a teacher under the education ministry for over a decade, I possess both lived experiences and implications of abrupt policy changes, including the ongoing debate over abolishing or reinstating cut-off points for BCSE students. 

The reinstatement of the cut-off point is a double-edged sword. While it may help maintain academic standards (or quality of education as some argue albeit without any evidence) or fare resource constraints, it may also widen educational disparities and discourage students who do not meet the threshold. Instead, the government must introduce tangible ways to enhance our education system, without letting the cut-off point become an obstacle to holistic educational growth. 

That being said, the drawbacks of common myth that having cut-off point will enhance the quality of education might outweigh the commonly perceived benefits, as it tends to overlook the diverse needs of students and does not address the deeper, underlying issues that cause inequality in education. In other words, relying on a cut-off system as a measure of quality of education can be harmful if we do not consider the broader context of educational issues and challenges.

Instead of focusing on cut-off points, the government should prioritise overhauling the education system by ensuring equitable infrastructure and creating inclusive policies that support all students. Academic success should not be measured solely by meeting a cut-off point, but by providing every student with equal opportunities, necessary tools, and fair resources to thrive. Addressing this issue will offer a better if not accurate reflection of the true quality of education. It also brings us back to the crucial task of clearly defining what Quality of Education means in our context, especially in light of the belief that cut-off points inherently enhance educational quality.  

Norm-Referenced Vs Criterion-Referenced Assessment  

I believe that the idea of cut-off point in our education system originates from the systemic emphasis we place on norm-referenced assessments (NRA) over criterion-referenced assessment (CRA). 

Our education system dominantly uses NRA (e.g., percentage-based grading systems) to categorise and rank students’ performances as compared to their peers rather than the actual level of mastering the required knowledge or skill. 

On the contrary, in other educationally advanced countries, they emphasise on CRA (e.g., measuring learners’ performance before their entry into the job) which is more concerned with whether a candidate has mastered specific skills or knowledge against a fixed set of criteria. 

While both forms of assessment have its own merits and drawbacks, looking at the current scenario of how education system and labour market are interlinked, CRA has still more edge than the NRA. CRA focus on learning, encourages mastery of knowledge or skills, and eventually facilitate students to understand expectations and areas needing improvement. NRA is largely useful when students are required to be ranked for college or university admission or comparing large group of student performance for research or policy decisions. 

Our strong emphasis on NRA results in cut-off points based on comparing student grades, rather than measuring the actual skills or knowledge they have acquired. In today’s world, employers value skills more than grades. Shifting the focus to CRA may better help prepare students for the job market. This shift would not only make students more employable but also ready for international opportunities.

Understanding "Quality" and "Education"   

The topic of Quality has come under scrutiny again in the recent discussions regarding the state of education in Bhutan. It has been reportedly argued that the reinstatement of cut-off points is a measure to a decline in the quality of education. 

But what exactly is meant by the term Quality of Education?

Before debating whether the quality of education has improved or declined, we must first examine what both quality and education truly mean in our context. Without a clear and shared understanding of these terms, any judgment on the state of our education system risks being incomplete or misinformed. These terms are not universal, and their meanings can vary significantly depending on how they are defined, applied, and understood in different settings.

Only by defining what quality and education truly represent in our context can we then accurately assess the effectiveness of our education policies, such as the cut-off point system and determine whether they really enhance or undermine from the educational experience. It is crucial to explore what these terms really mean to us as a society, and how they should be understood in the context of Bhutan’s evolving education system.

I argue this based on the following points: 

Understanding the Terms

The term “quality” is subjective, relative, and context dependent. Without a clear, agreed-upon definition of what “quality” is in the context of education, it is hard to measure whether it has improved or declined. The same goes for “education”, which is interpreted in different ways, sometimes as a process, a product, or an outcome. 

Context Matters

Quality of education in Bhutan may mean different things at different stages of development or in different contexts (e.g., urban/rural, traditional/modern). 

For example, the quality of education in Bhutan may be judged differently than in other countries based on our local ideas like Wholesome Education (Kuen tshang Shey Yoen), which adopts a more holistic in approach by combining values and skills, instead of focusing solely on academic performances. 

Misconceptions in Understanding

Often, discussions around quality of education are oversimplified, by depending on superficial indicators like test scores or graduates not being able to write a proper job application. This does not reflect the full spectrum of what constitutes quality education, which includes a broad range of factors or soft skills (e.g., critical thinking, creativity, social skills) and real-world preparedness.

Dynamic Nature of Education

Education is complex because it is seen both as a process and a product. It is not just about grade in the schools but also includes the long-term development of individuals. The concept of education is always evolving and hence it cannot be limited to a single definition or a fixed structure.

Broadening the Understanding

Education also has both abstract and tangible aspects. It includes formal systems like schools and curriculums, as well as informal ways of learning like social and hands-on experiences. Because education is always changing, it cannot be simplified into one formula, so definitions should be flexible enough to consider this fact. 

Quality of Education in Bhutan  

The term “Quality of Education” is often used loosely in Bhutan, with people from all walks of life discussing it without clearly understanding what it means. There is widespread concern about the perceived decline in education quality, but few take the time to question what quality of education refers to.

When debating whether the quality of education has improved or declined, the first question should be: 

· What does quality of education mean in Bhutanese context? 

·  Was there ever a quality of education in the past? If so, what did it look like? 

These questions often go unanswered. Instead, many argue that quality of education has declined because nowadays graduates struggle to write formal job applications or conduct miserably in the society. Others claim students today are increasingly getting into social issues like drug abuse rather than focusing on their studies.

What stands out is the lack of a firm, shared definition of “quality of education” in the Bhutanese context. It is difficult to judge whether education has improved or declined without first clearly defining what quality means. 

Quality and education are separate concepts and combining them requires a unified understanding and an agreed method of measurement. Without this, any argument about the state of education becomes misleading. 

Quality of education is not just about academic scores. It should be holistic, inclusive, and relevant to the country’s economic and social needs. That's why, in Bhutan, it is often linked to providing wholesome education emphasising not only reading, writing, and comprehension but also the all-round development of individuals. Academic excellence matters, so do technical and vocational skills.

The talk of quality of education gained attention at the first Annual Education Conference in 1997 and perhaps, remain unaddressed until now. Bhutan still lacks a concrete definition or conceptual framework for quality education.

The 8th Annual Education Conference (2004) however, identified five strategies to ensure quality of education:

1.    Quality infrastructure and facilities

2.    Quality curriculum 

3.    More instructional time 

4.    Enhancing wholesome education 

5.    Quality teachers

Identifying strategies to ensure quality education is one thing, but determining whether we have really achieved it is another. It is still debatable if all schools across the nation have the same quality infrastructure, adequate motivated teachers, and equitable learning opportunities for students.  

Quality of education goes beyond these broad categories. For example, it also includes factors like a manageable student-teacher ratio, insightful school leadership, transparent policies, active collaboration with the community, inclusive policies, and better support for student engagement and well-being.

There are many factors to consider when discussing the quality of education. It is not enough to make claims based on personal opinions without substantial evidence to support the argument.

 

Filter or Foster: At the Crossroad 

We are at a crucial crossroad (still not very late) to decide whether we continue filtering students through cut-off policies or foster better learning opportunities by reimagining our education system. It is time to evaluate if we have implemented the strategies aimed at enhancing the quality of education. 

We can begin by examining whether quality infrastructure and resources are fairly distributed across all schools (urban, remote) in Bhutan. We must assess if our curriculum has a quality to prepare students for jobs, both locally and internationally. Are our colleges affiliated with international institutions and our courses and qualifications globally recognised? 

Are our schools running based on nationally standardised student-teacher ratio? Are teachers offered enough professional development opportunities? 

Are school principals fostering positive learning environment? Is there a robust collaboration between schools and the community?

Depending solely on cut-off points to define quality of education is not only misguided but also risky. Not only it overlooks deeper issues (e.g., unequal access to quality teachers, infrastructure, and learning opportunities), we are ignoring the diverse talents of students in areas like creativity, leadership, and vocational skills. True quality of education lies in building an inclusive system that supports every learner, not just those who pass a narrow academic cut-off point.

Naming and Renaming Mania

 

The recent rebranding of Bhutanese tourism from its old tagline Happiness is a Place to Believe, and the increase in Sustainable Development Fee (SDF) sparked a great deal of debate and stimulated different wavelengths of societal dialogue. Enough ink has been spilt in every media forum by all walks of people, pouring in their standpoints – both in favour and against the current brand. Given my limited financial knowledge, I will set aside the SDF issue from the limelight of discussion in this article. Rather, I am intrigued to offer my thoughts on the topic of changing names.  

Bhutan Believe

When the only difference is the name

Initially, I was also swayed to think on this subject of naming and renaming phenomena. But I am already accustomed to this culture of how avid and obsessed we are in this gamble of name-changing malady. In the name of change, we are deeply infatuated with only changing names, and that is it. I can vividly recall that in the place where I domiciled, one of the schools was originally identified as a junior high school. A few years later, the same school was renamed a middle secondary school. Then the politics and political parties emerged to take the batons of this name-changing relay race. Buying the same nametag of change, two distinct neighbouring schools situated in the same locality were merged under one organisational jurisdiction and named the central school. During the tenure of a new political party that reverberated to overhaul the old education system, the union of the two schools done by the previous political party were dissociated and retroceded the schools with the same ancestry surname.

While the change in the name of the school was obvious and publicly evident, the quality of amenities and infrastructures have regrettably remained unchanged. The scarcity of teachers,  heavy instructional hours, awful bosses, sickening policies, pitiable working conditions, deprived career and Professional Development (PD) opportunities, cramped classrooms, and sterile internet access to name a few are still ubiquitous and an antique thing in the museum of our school’s plight. Perhaps, we remain utterly confused with the definition of change. 

As a former schoolteacher, I have a decent memory and understanding of how this word change typically remained as the keyword in the vocabulary of our policymakers. However, when I recurrently saw little or no change, like in Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet, I always lived by the dictum: What’s in the name? If we do not practically operationalise the concept of change in action, what good does it do by simply changing the name? That was why, in 2001, when my name was erroneously changed from Damcho Wangdue to Dumcho Wangdi by one of the irresponsible and negligent drunk census officers, I remained least bothered. 

Bhutan Happiness is a Place: Old Tourism Tagline

Change in the Tourism Brand

Returning to the change in the tourism brand, I hold very idiosyncratic viewpoints for the change in the name this time after I attended a seminar organised by the Royal Institute for Governance and Strategic Studies (RIGSS). With the new brand, Believe, I believe that there are multiple things that it can offer – if we think broadly and optimistically.   

For a small Kingdom like ours, which is often overwhelmed with resources and capital limitations, it is way beyond the latitude of the nation to accommodate a huge volume of visitors. That is why His Majesty the 4^th Druk Gyalpo was very farsighted during the benevolent reign that he steadily emphasised High Value, Low Volume tourism in Bhutan. Besides leaving abundant monarchic legacies including the noble philosophy of Gross National Happiness (GNH), His Majesty the 4^th King has already visualised, in days of yore, that if the health of the nation is lost, it would be difficult if not, impossible to recuperate to its unprecedented form. The health of Bhutan as a sovereign Kingdom lies heavily on our unique culture and the intact natural environment that remains pristine and unadulterated. We have read in the past that in many countries what Bhutan have today has been long lost, and it is, therefore, critical that we preserve what is precious to our country. Thanks to our holistic developmental paradigm of GNH which emphasises the nation’s economic prosperity without losing the elements of spirituality, culture, and environmental sustainability. At the heart of this paradigm is happiness and well-being for the Bhutanese people.

Why do we need change? 

I concur with the notion that if a nation aspires to progress, the generation of revenue is extremely important at this time of rapid globalisation, digitalisation, and commercialisation. It has even been more important since the COVID-19 pandemic has created an unprecedented era of hardships for the people altering our regular ways of livelihood. Post-pandemic, Bhutan embraced eye-opening experiences that cautioned with and offered both life-changing and life-threatening lessons to survive as a nation. Consequently, we have gradually started to self-actualise that the income derived due to mass tourism is not always nourishing for the nation’s future, especially in terms of sustaining the happiness and wellbeing of the Bhutanese. That is, happiness and well-being are matchless values that cannot be substituted, bought, or imported with any foreign outings. 

Mask dances as one element of culture (Image source unknown)

What believe could mean 

Although the brand believe appears to be dull, abstract, and subjective in its interpretation, the overall change in the tourism brand was timeous. If broadly construed, believe can imply that Bhutan has stalwart faith in her potential to rise higher and grow stronger. Believe embrace a strong conviction that we are competent of taking this nation forward as a sovereign Kingdom for many generations to come. Beyond all, believe is a signpost to serve as a stark reminder to the policymakers that for a fragile economic nation like ours, we cannot afford to focus singularly on mass tourism if we are to uphold the sovereignty of our Kingdom. 

What tourism means for Bhutan? 

One key focus of discourse that emerged due to the change in brand and subsequently increasing the SDF was regarding the volume of tourists vising Bhutan. Many remained sceptical that the national brand will limit the profile of tourism, but I continued to think otherwise. Elsewhere, tourism is largely marketed by publicising towering skyscrapers, spectacular beaches, modern technologies, a large museum, world-class recreations and entertainment centres, bubbling nightlife, and magnificent metropolis to name a few. In Bhutan, since its inception, tourism is promoted to showcase national identity through our unique culture and intangible values associated with environmental sustainability, serenity, peacefulness, tranquillity, and spirituality. 

Tourists who were drawn to visit Bhutan frequently were informed of our national aspirations, and they applauded their visits by embracing these ideals with a strong ethical compass. With the new tourism policy, which charges travellers $200 per night, it is never a signal to limit such tourists visiting the country. Instead, for a nation that depends excessively on its natural environment – both for the development and Kingdom’s prosperity, it intends to offer an additional experience of values from the little coffer we have. The lesser the volume, the better the quality and higher the standards in the value of their experience. 

What lesson can we draw? 

Bhutan may remain on the bucket lists of travellers who are still looking for certain ideals, such as sustainability, tranquility, sacredness, peace, well-being, and harmony – values that our development philosophy (GNH) strives for. If there is a sharp dip in the volume of tourists, it may intrude on Bhutan’s generation of revenue as tourism is the second largest income-generating source after hydropower. Even if there is less volume of tourists visiting after this new policy, instead of making plans to revert and recycle mass tourism, it is wise for our policymakers to recognise that tourism is not just an avenue to generate revenue and sustain our Kingdom’s future of self-reliance and sovereignty. It is imperative that we look for ways to support ourselves independently to lessen our propensity to rely on other countries. It is time we begin with small steps.