Kritik am Buch „The Shadow Of The Dalai Lama ... - Neues von Shi De

that resolutions could be passed against him, “No, not possible” (Newsgroup 13).
Whenever he is asked about his unshakable office, the Kundun always repeats that this absolutist
position of power was thrust upon him against his express wishes. The people emphatically demanded
of him that he retain his role as regent for life. With regard to the charismatic power of integration he
is able to exercise, this was certainly a sensible political decision. But this means that the exile
Tibetan state system still remains Buddhocratic at heart. Nonetheless, this does not prevent the
Kundun from presenting the constitution finally passed in 1963 as being “based upon the principles of
modern democracy”, nor from constantly demanding the separation of church and state (Dalai Lama
XIV, 1993b, p. 25; 1996b, p. 30).
In the course of its 35-year existence the exile Tibetan “parliament” has proved itself to be purely
cosmetic. It was barely capable of functioning and played a completely subordinate role in the
political decision-making process. The “first ever democratic political party in the history of Tibet” as
it terms itself in its political platform, the National Democratic Party of Tibet (NDPT), first saw the
light of day in the mid nineties. Up until at least 1996 the “people” were completely uninterested in
the democratic rules of the game (Tibetan Review, February 1990, p. 15). Politics was at best
conducted by various pressure groups — the divisive regional representations, the militant Tibetan
Youth Association and the senior abbots of the four chief sects. But ultimately decisions (still) lay in
the hands of His Holiness, several executive bodies, and the members of three families, of whom the
most powerful is that of the Kundun, the so-called “Yabshi clan”.
The same is true of the freedom of the press and freedom of speech in general. “The historian
Wangpo Tethong,” exiled Tibetan opponents of the Dalai Lama wrote in 1998, “whose noble family
has constantly occupied several posts in the government in exile, equates democratization in exile
with the ‘propagation of an ideology of national unity’ and 'religious and political unification'. This
contradicts the western conception of democracy” (Press release of the Dorje Shugden International
Coalition, February 7, 1998; translation). The sole (!) independent newspaper in Dharamsala, with the
name of Democracy (in Tibetan: Mangtso), was forced to cease publication under pressure from
members of the government in exile. In the Tibet News, an article by Jamyang Norbu on the state of
freedom of the press is said to have appeared. The author summarizes his analysis as follows: “Not
only is there no encouragement or support for a free Tibetan press, rather there is almost an
extinguishing of the freedom of opinion in the Tibetan exile community” (Press release of the Dorje
Shugden International Coalition, February, 7, 1998).
The Tibetan parliament in exile and the democracy of the exiled Tibetans is a farce. Even Thubten J.
Norbu, one of the Dalai Lama’s brothers, is convinced of this. When in the early nineties he clashed
fiercely with Gyalo Thondop, another brother of the Kundun, over the question of foreign affairs, the
business of government was paralyzed due to this dispute between the brothers (Tibetan Review,
September 1992, p. 7). The 11 th parliamentary assembly (1991), for instance, could not reach
consensus over the election of a full cabinet. The parliamentary members therefore requested that His
Holiness make the decision. The result was that of seven ministers, two belonged to the “Yabshi
clan”, that is, to the Kundun’s own family: Gyalo Thondop was appointed chairman of the council of
ministers and was also responsible for the “security” department. The Dalai Lama’s sister, Jetsun
Pema, was entrusted with the ministry of education.
In future, everything is supposed to change. Nepotism, corruption, undemocratic decisions,