Thanks to the favourable impact of movements for democracy in Nepal and Eastern Europe last year, the Dalai Lama was compelled to announce some democratic measures in Dharamsala, seat of the Tibetan exile government.
While such measures are steps in the right direction, I see some dangers in the misuse of the word "democracy", which can be used to perpetuate existing patrimonialism in the exile government and to launch ideological offensives against Beijing unless the existing institutions are genuinely democratised.
Under such circumstances, a skeptic does not see any real possibility of the Yabshi-dominated, semi-educated coterie which constitutes the Dalai Lama's power elite sharing its power either with the people directly or with their representatives. That coterie, with the Dalai Lama's implicit approval, will continue to dominate the crucial sectors of the Tibetan decision-making process through "democratic" manipulation. For whatever the pontiff's religious piety might be, he has shown over the years a human weakness in the exercise of power. It is either the male members of his immediate family ("Yabshi") or his clansmen who are entrusted with top political authority. This is obvious, for example, from the assignment of his men in Hong Kong, London, Tokyo and Washington. It is this same group that has been entrusted with the task of maintaining contact with the Chinese and others 'since 1978.
Unless the Dalai Lama ensures that the proposed democratic measures provide adequate scope for popular participation in the crucial political decisions that could affect the Tibetan people's future, Tibetan democracy will remain a farce that perpetuates patrimonialism. Given the temptations of power, I do not see much possibility of power-sharing with the people's representatives, far less with the people themselves. If the future of Tibetan democracy is to be safeguarded, the Tibetan public must press for genuine democratisation of existing institutions.