For centuries, the kingdom of Bhutan, nestled in the heart of the Himalayas, has remained untouched by the rest of the world. As a result, the creation of a modern state had been delayed for a very long time. Bhutan is now making rapid progress.

The UNDP Analyst Thomas Winderl evaluated the status quo of Bhutan's efforts to create a modern state while trying to preserve traditional elements.

He refers to Max Weber's classic triangle of statehood: 1) a given territory, 2) the monopoly of legitimate rule, 3) a set of institutions providing continuity of the state. He concludes that Bhutan, despite its many problems, is achieving the goal of an efficient modern state.

1) Territory
To constitute a state, its territory has to be clearly defined. With the Himalayan peaks in the North, and wide open borders in the southern jungle hills, it has never been easy to define the borders of Bhutan. Nevertheless, in 1691, monk Shabdrung Ngawang Narmgual, of the Buddhist Drukpa School, unified the country. Since then, the borders have remained almost untouched. Both China, from the North, and India, from the South, tried several times to invade the country. However, natural obstacles, such as inaccessible peaks between Tibet and Bhutan, and refined diplomatic strategies (e.g. India-Bhutan Treaty of Friendship in 1949) protected the territory and prevented clashes.
In the early 1990s, independent Indian guerilla groups infiltrated the south of Bhutan. They sought protection from the Indian army and searched for a more secure base for their operations. This prompted Bhutan to use, for the first time in its history, modern armed forces to expel these invading groups (United Liberation Front for Assam, National Democratic Front of Bodoland and the Kamtapuri Liberation Organisation) and defend its borders.

2) Power
A monopoly of the use of physical power in its territory constitutes the second element of modern statehood. In 1907, Ugyen Wangchuck was elected, by a unanimous vote, as hereditary ruler of Bhutan. The emerging political elite began to successfully accumulate and centralize power. Since the 1960s, there has been an expansion of political power throughout the country. Nowadays, Bhutan is legitimizing itself as a state by strengthening its relationships with the international community while internally trying to create a national identity.

According to the India-Bhutan Treaty of Friendship of 1949, India took control of Bhutanese external affairs. In exchange, India granted Bhutan no interference in its internal administration. Since the 1960s, Bhutanese kings have gradually gained India's confidence and diminished its role. Nevertheless, the relationship between the two states remained very friendly. Bhutan began to slowly appear on the international stage and became recognized as a sovereign and independent state. In 1974, the United Nations and a Liaison of Denmark opened offices in Bhutan's capital of Thimphu. In 1998, China also recognized Bhutan's international status.

On an internal level, the unity of the Bhutan is expressed by a cohesive national sentiment. Since the 1960s, it has been enhanced under the claim "One Nation, One People". The national sentiment was promoted by improving communication infrastructure such as: new roads, public transportation and postal services.

In order to create national awareness, national symbols (such as the flag with the traditional dragon, the anthem and the icon of the king) began to play a dominant role. Both state imposed common language and the secular state's increasing control over religious bodies accelerated the building of a nation.

3) Institutions
A clearly defined territory and legitimate power over it is not enough for the long-term survival of a state. To guarantee its existence, a set of institutions is the final element required to form a modern state.
Due to Bhutan's remote location, the process of building administrative, political and legal institutions began very late. Until 1952, the king held the executive, legislate and juridical powers.

The main problem with Bhutan's administrative institutions is related to its history. While Bhutan did not have to overcome colonial bureaucratic structures, it did not have any imported, modern bureaucratic system to emulate. Since 1907, and especially since the early 1960s, the strength of Bhutan's bureaucratic growth has been a centralized monarchy and a ban on religious orders from political institutions.
Similar to the civil administration, military institutions emerged relatively late in Bhutan.

The existence of political institutions is a problem. Although partisan parties are not officially banned in Bhutan, they are not tolerated by the political elite. For a long time, dissent was hardly expressed; no one dared to oppose the king. However, since the 1950s, the king began to slowly decentralize his power within the Cabinet, the Royal Advisory Council and the National Assembly (Tshogdu Chhenmo). At this rate, if current developments continue, Bhutan may see the emergence of new political parties and a new class of politicians outside the state bureaucracy.
The current drafting of the constitution is paramount to the process of forming a modern and democratic Kingdom.

Thomas Winderl

15.11.2004