Abstract
Bhutan Press Mirror – This paper analyses Bhutan’s media regulatory framework, highlighting the challenges faced by traditional media in the digital age. Despite constitutional guarantees of press freedom, Bhutan’s mainstream media remains in turmoil.
Meanwhile, digital platforms operate with minimal oversight, amplifying disinformation and misinformation through anonymity and algorithmic prioritization. This analysis proposes a radical reform to uphold constitutional rights in spirit and action.
Under the visionary leadership of His Majesty Drukgyal Zhipa, the institution of democracy in Bhutan was accompanied by an explicit constitutional guarantee of media freedom, a feature not universally present in other democracies including the United Kingdom, India, and the United States. Article 7, Section 5 of the Constitution of the Kingdom of Bhutan states, “There shall be freedom of the press, radio and television and other forms of dissemination of information, including electronic.”
However, the practical implementation of this guarantee has become increasingly challenging over the decades, with statistical data indicating a decline in both the quantity and quality of journalism. This decline is exemplified by recent debates between state-owned media and private newspapers concerning state-funded advertisements, underscoring mainstream media’s concerning dependence on state funding (Social and Cultural Affairs Committee, 2024). Bhutan’s press freedom ranking has plummeted from 33rd globally in 2022 to 147th by 2024, a collapse attributed to institutional barriers and unregulated digital competition (Reporters Without Borders, 2024).
Asymmetric regulation and economic dependencies
The Information, Communications and Media Act (ICMA) 2018 exacerbates existing imbalances through asymmetric enforcement (Bhutan Infocomm and Media Authority, 2018). Traditional media outlets face stringent licensing requirements administered by the Bhutan InfoComm and Media Authority (BICMA), whilst digital platforms exploit jurisdictional gaps.
BICMA maintains a stringent approach towards mainstream media reporting, while identical allegations posted on digital platforms such as social media often remain unchallenged, highlighting this regulatory arbitrage (The Bhutanese, 2024). Economic dependencies further worsen these disparities: an estimated 60 percent of traditional media revenue is derived from state advertising, incentivizing self-censorship, whereas digital outlets leverage global advertising networks. This financial coercion has contributed to a 70 percent decline in investigative journalism since 2020 (Freedom House, 2024).
Institutional barriers to information flow
Institutional barriers further marginalise traditional media. Ministries require written questions with response delays extending up to six months under Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) modeled on Thimphu Thromde’s 2018 framework (Ministry of Industry, Commerce and Employment, 2023). During the 2024 dengue outbreak, BBS TV’s coverage experienced delays awaiting bureaucratic clearance, whilst WhatsApp groups disseminated unverified prevention tips, eroding public trust in official channels. Judicial opacity compounds these challenges: the 2022 SOP centralizes press interactions through the Chief Justice’s office, enabling a degree of editorial control over court reporting (Judiciary of Bhutan, 2022).
The civil service’s restrictive communication policies, particularly in light of His Majesty’s vision for entrepreneurial civil servants expressed during the 117th National Day celebration, present a stark contradiction. The Bhutan Civil Service Rules (2020) prohibit unauthorized media interactions, forcing journalists to rely on designated focal persons who often lack decision-making authority. This system fundamentally contradicts the spirit of an innovative and entrepreneurial civil service, where transparent communication and constructive criticism should foster improvement and innovation.
The rise of social media and information integrity
The rise of social media presents existential challenges to information integrity. Anonymous forums amplify misinformation, blurring the lines between professional journalism and unverified content. During the 2024 dengue crisis, viral posts promoting unproven treatments overshadowed delayed but accurate reporting by traditional outlets. Algorithmic prioritization of engagement over accuracy exacerbates polarization, with 88.4 percent of Bhutanese youth accessing news via smartphones dominated by sensational content (SCAC, 2024).
Digital platforms’ anonymity protections serve as vectors for disinformation whilst simultaneously shielding whistleblowers. This asymmetry forces traditional journalists into ethical quandaries, balancing the need for speed against the imperative of accuracy while competing with viral falsehoods. The ICM Act’s extraterritorial clause (Section 4) fails to effectively regulate cross-border platforms, leaving global social media platforms largely unaccountable for the misinformation they host.
Economic vulnerabilities
Economic vulnerabilities deepen traditional media’s crisis. Print outlets like Kuensel incur high distribution costs in mountainous regions, whilst digital media bypasses physical infrastructure. The 2023 state advertising budget cuts reduced traditional outlets’ revenue by 40 percent, while digital platforms reliant on global monetization remained unaffected. BICMA’s spectrum policies further favor digital growth, auctioning 5G bandwidth to telecommunications companies while community radio stations languish on scarce FM frequencies.
Learning from India’s landmark case, ‘Shreya Singhal v Union of India’ [2015] SCR 3, which struck down vague internet laws, Bhutan’s courts could mandate proportionality tests for content restrictions. The Indian Supreme Court’s emphasis that “it is not the function of our government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error” provides valuable guidance for navigating Bhutan’s evolving media landscape.
Proposed Reforms
To address these interconnected challenges, Bhutan urgently requires a comprehensive Right to Information Act that would:
1. Establish clear, enforceable timelines for information requests.
2. Create an independent appeals mechanism.
3. Override restrictive SOPs that currently impede the flow of public information.
4. Protect civil servants who share information in the public interest.
5. Enable entrepreneurial civil servants to communicate innovations and challenges openly.
6. Foster transparency and accountability in government operations.
Recent findings from the National Council of Bhutan’s Social and Cultural Affairs Committee reveal concerning trends: Kuensel’s dual identity as a partly state-owned entity creates conflicting pressures, whilst private newspapers derive an estimated 90 percent of their income from government funding. Most troubling is the self-censorship statistic, with 84 percent of journalists reporting the inability to report freely due to pressure from powerful individuals.
Digital platforms require balanced regulation to curb misinformation without stifling innovation. Mandating transparency labels for anonymous political content and applying ICM Act ethics codes uniformly could mitigate disinformation. However, as Article 7, Section 22 of Bhutan’s Constitution authorises reasonable restrictions, these must be carefully balanced against the fundamental guarantee of press freedom.
The judiciary’s role as constitutional arbiter remains pivotal. Landmark rulings affirming press freedom as non-derogable would serve as a crucial counterbalance to potential executive overreach. Immediate repeal of the 2022 SOP’s pre-approval requirements and reforms to defamation laws to protect public interest reporting are essential steps. Until such measures are implemented, perceived judicial complicity in media suppression will persist, potentially undermining Bhutan’s democratic foundations.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Bhutan stands at a critical juncture. The enactment of a Right to Information Act, alongside regulatory reforms embracing platform neutrality, fostering financial independence for traditional media, and encouraging judicial activism, could reverse the alarming decline in press freedom. Such systemic changes align with His Majesty’s vision for an entrepreneurial civil service and are crucial to ensure that both traditional and digital media effectively fulfill their democratic roles. Without these fundamental reforms, the constitutional promise of a “vibrant information society” will likely remain unfulfilled, jeopardising Gross National Happiness and the nation’s democratic future, leaving the “watchdog” or “fourth estate” as merely a paper tiger.
References
1. Constitution of the Kingdom of Bhutan 2008
2. Information, Communications and Media Act of Bhutan 2018
3. Shreya Singhal v Union of India [2015] SCR 3
4. Bhutan InfoComm and Media Authority, ‘Information, Communications and Media Act Implementation Guidelines’ (BICMA 2018)
5. Freedom House, ‘Freedom of the Press 2024 – Bhutan’ (Freedom House 2024)
6. Judiciary of Bhutan, ‘Standard Operating Procedure for Media Interactions’ (Royal Court of Justice 2022)
7. Ministry of Industry, Commerce and Employment, ‘SOP for Sharing Public Information’ (MOICE 2023)
10. The Bhutanese, ‘Press Freedom Ranking’ (The Bhutanese, 15 January 2024)
8. Reporters Without Borders, ‘World Press Freedom Index 2024’ (RSF 2024)
9. Social and Cultural Affairs Committee, ‘Report on the State of Media in Bhutan’ (National Council of Bhutan 2024)
Sonam Tshering, Lawyer