11/26/2025
Lhotsshoampa voice/ लोछम्पाहरूको आवाज़
Bhutan’s Nine Ministries:
Minimalism in the Name of Democracy, or a Strategy of Control?
Modern nations around the world build democracy on transparency, decentralization, accountability, and citizen participation.
But when we look at Bhutan’s administrative structure, one thing becomes clear: a country that claims to be a democracy is functioning with only nine ministries.
In today’s world, this is an extremely small number for any democratic nation.
1. How can nine ministries run an entire nation?????
In a true democracy, responsibilities are divided so that too much power does not concentrate in one group or institution.
Education, health, infrastructure, economy, social security, industry, labor, environment—each of these requires its own ministry, experts, and a clear structural framework.
But in Bhutan, many of these crucial sectors are merged into a few ministries.
This does not create efficiency—it creates excessive centralization of power.
2. Even though it’s called “democracy,” decision-making is still trapped at the center
From the outside, Bhutan looks like a democratic country.
But its institutional structure still concentrates power in a few signature positions.
Few ministries, too many responsibilities, very few decision-makers—this naturally restricts decision-making to the top level only.
True democracy stands on checks and balances.
But with a minimal structure, checks weaken and control strengthens.
3. “The country is small, so fewer ministries are enough” — this argument does not hold
Bhutan often justifies its small number of ministries by pointing to its population size.
But this claim is not based on facts.
Other small nations:
• Norway → 15 ministries
• Denmark → 20 ministries
• Singapore → 16 ministries
All of these have populations equal to or smaller than Bhutan.
Yet they understand that:
• greater specialization improves outcomes,
• division of responsibilities increases transparency, and
• no single institution becomes too powerful.
Democracy is not defined by population size—it is defined by institutional structure.
4. With too few ministries, policy-making naturally fails
When many national responsibilities are packed into a few ministries, the results become obvious:
• Slow economic development
• Weak job creation
• Lack of innovation in education and skill development
• Growing dependence on foreign economies
• Rural development falling behind
An old, overly centralized structure cannot solve modern problems.
5. Democracy is not just a name; it must also have a structure
Democracy is not limited to elections.
Democracy depends on:
• how power is shared,
• how citizens participate,
• and how transparent the state is.
A nine-ministry structure cannot ensure:
• strong accountability
• independent oversight
• clear separation of powers
• policy expertise
• broad representation
So the main question arises:
Is Bhutan practicing democracy, or merely performing it?
⸻
Conclusion
Bhutan’s nine-ministry system may look simple on paper, but in practice it is a highly centralized model of governance—one that does not align with modern democratic standards.
To build a truly strong democracy in the future, Bhutan needs:
• more ministries,
• decentralization of authority,
• broader public participation,
• and institutional transparency.
Without these changes, Bhutan’s democracy will remain democracy in name—but centralized governance in Bhutan.
