As readers will be aware, Norbu asserted that Sangay stated that he wants to be the “Obama of China.” To some observers, this paraphrase might suggest that Sangay is over-ambitious or that he lacks political judgment.

While the “Chinese Obama” issue has generated heated debate, the editors of The Tibetan Political Review (TPR) believe that a battle of sound-bites does not contribute to a well-informed electorate.  Therefore, in order to fight oversimplification, we set out to determine what exactly Sangay actually said.  It is our hope that the facts will encourage voters to examine the candidates’ policy positions rather than rely on sensational sound-bites.

Sangay’s Middle Way: Tibetan Integration Into China

Sangay’s response to Norbu was that his “Chinese Obama” comment “was a JOKE and not meant to be taken seriously.” Based on our research, this is true. However, in investigating the issue, it also became apparent that a more important issue is being overlooked that is not a joke; namely, Sangay’s proposal for Tibetans to integrate into the Chinese society and political system.  Moreover, Sangay has not yet presented this viewpoint to Tibetan voters.  Voters should decide for themselves whether or not they agree, but the issue should be addressed.

The event at which Sangay spoke was a panel discussion at the Woodrow Wilson Center, a think-tank in Washington DC, on October 27, 2008 (eight days before the election victory of Barack Obama). The topic was “China’s Tibet Policy in the Aftermath of Last Spring’s Unrest.” Sangay suggests that Norbu check the facts with event participants. Fortunately, an even more reliable source is available. A TPR contact provided an audio tape recording of the event (a partial transcript is available here).

Sangay spoke third, after professors Eliot Sperling and Allen Carlson.  His speech began:

“I thought maybe I can relate Tibet to Obama…  So 60 years after Tibet was occupied by China, America is on the verge of electing an African-American president.  Look at the, what you call, situation in Tibet.  Now can we ask this question in China: can a Tibetan become the next president of China?  Or a premier of China?  One could say it’s impossible, right?”

Sangay’s speech then discussed in detail how minority representation in the U.S. political system has been increasing, while in China there are basically no “minorities” (including Tibetans) in power at the national or even regional level.  He also discussed the Chinese constitution and laws regarding minority rights and autonomy, arguing that China should enforce its own laws.

He concluded:

“So why I say this?…  [T]he trajectory of African-Americans, at least the political representation in the U.S., U.S. government, has been on the upswing.  As for Tibetans, it is going down…

“Again, bringing Obama and Tibet back together, you know, China wants to [be a great power like America].  But maybe China can try to emulate some good things, some positive things which, about America as well.  You know, that is respecting and implementing the principles of equality, freedom, and justice as far as African-American representation in U.S. government.”

Sangay’s approach is unique.  It transforms the Tibetan struggle from one for freedom and self-determination, into one for civil rights and “representation in … government.”  It differs from His Holiness’ Middle Way vision, which is for a distinct and internally autonomous Tibet able to preserve its unique culture and identity.

In contrast, Sangay’s proposal lays out a vision in which Tibetans (like African-Americans in the U.S.) are given equal rights as Chinese citizens, and become integrated into the social and political system of the People’s Republic of China (PRC).  This equality would then, in theory, allow an ambitious Tibetan to dream of being elected president of a democratic China.

We agree with Sangay that China should treat its “minorities” better and that all Chinese citizens should have equal rights under the law.  However, minority rights in the U.S. versus China are not analogous.  Tibet’s history and status are very different from that of African-Americans in the U.S.  The PRC does not just discriminate against minorities on civil rights; it also marginalizes them by increasing the number of Han Chinese in ethnic minority areas.  The U.S. minority population is growing and stands around 25% of the total population as of the 2000 census, distributed throughout the country.  In the PRC, the minority population is less than 10% of the population, concentrated in certain geographic regions.

Additionally, Sangay’s views expressed at the Woodrow Wilson Center do not account for the Chinese tendency to look down on non-Chinese peoples or cultures (“Han chauvinism” “大汉族主义”).  It also does not account for most Tibetans probably not wanting to become Chinese or be seen as Chinese.

Perhaps most troubling, Sangay’s proposal does not account for limiting Chinese migration into Tibet.  If China were to treat Tibetans like the U.S. treats its minorities, then Tibet would have no right to limit the number of Chinese who settle in Tibet.  There is no “African-American autonomous region” in the U.S.  That would mean that Tibet becomes an integral part of China, with unlimited Chinese immigration.  This would, in fact, be the opposite of the Middle Way’s goal to create a Tibetan political entity where Tibetans can control their own internal affairs.

Despite these gaps, it is logical to assume that Sangay has thought through this plan, because it forms such a prominent part of his speech.  Does Sangay then accept Tibet integrating politically into the People’s Republic of China, because this is a prerequisite for a Tibetan to become president of China?  Why broach the idea of a Tibetan leading China, unless the concern is simply with securing equal rights as Chinese citizens?  Does Sangay also realize that any Tibetan who is president of a democratic China will need the votes of 1.3 billion Chinese more than the votes of 6 million Tibetans?

Lobsang Sangay’s Conflicting Positions

We would like to know why Sangay has not presented this position directly to the Tibetan voters.  Certainly, Sangay’s approach is unique enough to merit discussion so the voters can make an informed decision.  Voters are entitled to an explanation from Sangay of a proposal he apparently made only in the context of a Washington DC think-tank.

Sangay’s position is also in tension with the position that he tends to express to Tibetan audiences.  For example, Sangay has written in Phayul of wanting to “witness the unfurling of our national flag… on the rooftop of the Potala Palace.” Such a sentiment may be widely shared among Tibetan voters, but it does not appear compatible with Sangay’s proposal of Tibetan integration into China.

The question, therefore, is: why does Sangay present one position to an audience of policy-makers in Washington DC, and another position to an audience of Tibetan voters?  The “Washington DC Sangay” is the Harvard-trained lawyer transcending nationalism, urging Tibetans to join the Chinese system and demand equal rights as Chinese citizens.  The “Dharamsala Sangay” is the Harvard-trained lawyer who is still a Tibetan Youth Congress activist at heart.

Although he does not say so, perhaps Sangay simply believes that Tibet’s political integration into China is a “third choice” if independence and autonomy prove impossible?  If so, this is a position that he has not yet presented adequately to the Tibetan voters.

As it stands now, political integration appears incompatible with the “Potala flag” scenario.  We would appreciate Sangay explaining this apparent discrepancy, and clarifying precisely where he stands.  President Obama is a proponent of telling voters not just what they want to hear, but what they need to hear.  Obama has put his faith in voters’ ability to understand nuances at times even when it has cost him politically.  We hope that Sangay similarly avoids political posturing and double-messaging, and trusts the voters to evaluate objectively his entire set of proposals.

If it were not for Norbu’s article about the “Chinese Obama” comment, it is entirely possible that Tibetan voters would not be in a position to ask these questions.  But we believe these are questions that must be asked.  Sangay would do himself and the voters a service to clear things up.  We formally invite him to respond in this forum.

Any candidate has a right to their views, but the voters also have a right to evaluate the whole candidate and not to be presented a half-picture.  The voters should ensure that they have thoroughly examined all sides of any candidate they consider supporting; we strongly hope that the Tibetan media will take the investigatory lead in this effort.

* * *

Postscript: The “Chinese Obama” Quote

Finally, voters may be curious whether Sangay actually claimed he wants to be the “Obama of China.”  In our view, it does not matter much compared to the above questions.

However, for the record, toward the end of the event an audience member asked about Jiang Zemin’s claim that the Chinese “liberation” of Tibet was equivalent to President Lincoln’s liberation of African-American slaves. After Eliot Sperling spoke for several minutes, Sangay added:

“For the sake of time I’ll just say, you know, now I got an excuse, now, Jiang Zemin said that their treatment of Tibetans is better than the American treatments of African-Americans.  Then I nominate myself as the next president of China.  At least I have a credential.  Obama is from law school, Harvard Law School, and I also graduated from Harvard Law School, you know, so we have si[milarities].”

Sangay claims this was “a JOKE,” which it clearly was.  On the other hand, Sangay’s joke reflected themes that ran throughout his main speech.  So it is reasonable for Norbu to place a certain emphasis on it.

Professor Carlson then replied, “Did you edit the Law Review?”  (President Obama edited the prestigious Harvard Law Review).  Sangay asked “pardon?” and then replied “I did the human rights journal. Does that [count]?  Yeah, so.”

Carlson’s remark reminds us that Sangay has drawn parallels between himself and Obama during the Kalon Tripa debates.  We do not think this serves Sangay’s campaign well, because we do not believe he does himself a favor by inviting the contrast between his record and President Obama’s.  Rather, we encourage Sangay to campaign based on his own substantial record, of which he should be proud.

It was with interest that we read Lobsang-la’s February 23, 2010 article, “Kalon Tripa Election Reform.” The essence of Lobsang-la’s article is that the Tibetan voting process should be made easier. As we discuss below, some of his suggestions are good, but some seem politically naïve. His focus on process also ignores the big picture of substance, which suggests that Lobsang-la has not yet displayed the political maturity and vision necessary to be Kalon Tripa.

I. Suggestions on Process: the Good and the Bad

The problem that Lobsang-la’s article chooses to tackle is the historically low voter turnout among the Tibetan electorate. We critique his article based on how well it addresses this problem.

Most Tibetans will agree that the goal of a democracy should be to maximize voter participation, with the caveat being the need to prevent voter fraud and preserve the legitimacy of election results. Within this framework, Lobsang-la raises both good and bad ideas.

A. Registration Processes: A 2 Out of 3

With respect to its first point – registration processes – the article suggests eliminating registration requirements. This presents a problem because the risk of voter fraud increases dramatically without voter rolls. Lobsang-la admits that this proposal is “somewhat radical,” and for good reason. Without a voter registration list, there is greater risk of irregular procedures such as double-voting or voting under false identities. (This is not the kind of increased voter participation anyone should want!)

Lobsang-la makes a better suggestion on early and same-day voter registration. There is no good reason why, in the modern world, voter registration needs to close two months before an election. Once a voter has proven their identity and eligibility, they should be permitted to vote the same day. On this point, we agree with Lobsang-la.

We also think Lobsang-la is has an interesting idea when he advocates significantly lowering the fee for the Rangzen Lakhdeb/Gyalthon Mangul for people with financial need. Ideally, the right to vote should not be dependent on any sort of a “poll tax.” Given that Tibet’s exiled government does not have the same power to tax income as a typical government, it may not be feasible to entirely eliminate these fees. Lobsang-la strikes the proper balance here.

B. Voting Processes: A 1 Out of 3

With respect to the article’s second point – voting processes – Lobsang-la’s suggestions are mail-in ballots, e-ballots, and proxy ballots. Here, only one out of three ideas are well-founded.

Mail-in ballots are a good idea, and are used throughout the democratic world. Provided there are controls in place over the distribution of ballots and verification of eligibility of the returned ones, mail-in ballots can serve to dramatically increase voter participation.

E-ballots, however, present a serious problem in the form of cyber-security. As any Tibetan who is involved in the struggle knows well, there is a swarm of specially-designed computer viruses emanating out of Chinese cyber-war laboratories directed against the Tibet movement. It would take just one virus, just one slip-up on the Election Commission computers, just one Chinese hacker to seriously compromise our election results. We cannot afford to ignore this serious threat. Is this major risk worth the marginal gain in voter participation? We do not believe so. The e-ballot proposal seems ill-conceived in light of China’s demonstrated ability to hack the Tibetan government-in-exile’s computers.

Proxy voting presents another problem, this time to the principles of the secret ballot and “one-person, one-vote.” These principles are imperiled when a voter delegates his or her vote to another person. There is no way of knowing whether a delegation is voluntary, nor can one ensure that the delegate will vote according the voter’s wish.

For example, one need only consider an abused spouse, dependent parent, or adult child being intimidated into allowing an abusive head of household to cast a proxy ballot on their behalf. The Kalon Tripa should be especially concerned with helping the most vulnerable members of the society. Unfortunately, Lobsang-la’s proposal would do the opposite. Lobsang-la surely does not intend this, which means instead that his proposal was not thought out from a practical standpoint.

C. The Theory: Unexplained and Divorced From Reality

Lobsang-la frames the above proposals through the theory of what he refers to as “law and behavioral economics.” Actually, Professor Cass Sunstein, who developed this theory, calls it “behavioral law and economics,” being an offshoot of a school known as “law and economics.” It seeks to use economics and psychology to determine how laws can be structured to achieve particular goals by essentially recognizing people’s predictable irrationality. This theory can be applied to the goal of increasing voter turnout by changing the rules to make voting easier.

We would have preferred that Lobsang-la explain how this theory shaped his proposals rather than simply cite it without explanation. It is possible that the linkage is self-evident in Lobsang-la’s mind. However, a good leader brings people along by persuasion, so he or she needs the ability to explain their ideas to the electorate.

We are also concerned that Lobsang-la might not be properly applying his chosen theory to the real world. We believe it is important to temper academic theory with an understanding of how particular proposals might work in reality (like e-ballots being hacked). It is important not to be so enamored with an academic theory that one loses perspective. Our next Kalon Tripa must not be a political novice who is unable to mix theory with reality.

II. Focusing on Process Misses the Big Picture of Substance

Taking a step back, Lobsang-la’s article tries to solve the problem of low Tibetan voter participation. In this respect, unfortunately, it falls short. It prescribes small-scale procedural tweaks; what is really called for is addressing the big-picture issues facing the nation to give voters a meaningful choice in this election.

In diagnosing the problem of low voter turnout, Lobsang-la asserts that there has been a “collective failure on the part of the government and the people.” He says that the people have become “complacent.” Is this accurate? We do not believe so. Anyone who has spent time in a Tibetan tea-house, or debating Tibetan politics over beers, knows that Tibetan voters are not exactly “complacent.” There are many exciting ideas, many frustrations, and many strong patriotic feelings.

Why does this “sha-tsa” not translate into action through the ballot box? Low voter turnout should not be attributed to the failure or complacency of the Tibetan people. Rather, it should be attributed to the fact that, in a democracy, elections have to be about something in order to mean anything.

Voters are not foolish. When an election makes a difference in their lives, they will vote (e.g. the high turnout in the 2008 United States presidential election.) On the other hand, when elections will not make a significant difference, voter turnout will be predictably low. This is regardless of procedural changes like e-ballots. Voters have to care in order to vote, no matter the voting process.

Currently elections do not appear to make much of a difference in how Tibet’s government-in-exile functions, so Tibetan elections become about personality, not policy. Tibetans discuss which candidate is more “patriotic” or “honest,” but not what that candidate’s positions are on the major issues facing the nation, or whether that candidate has the professional qualifications to manage the government bureaucracy. Lobsang-la’s prescription of procedural reforms will not address this larger substantive problem.

What are the substantive issues facing the nation? There are many, and the Kalon Tripa candidates must not be silent on them.

First, of course, is the direction the government will take with respect to the Middle Way policy in the face of repeated rejections by the Chinese government. With Samdhong Rinpoche stating that further concessions on the Tibetan side are impossible, and with the Chinese side flatly rejecting any movement on their end, it appears that the Middle Way is at an impasse.

We would like to hear how candidate Lobsang-la would deal with this impasse. How would he advance Tibet’s political cause while keeping his eyes on the ultimate goal of a Tibet by and for Tibetans? On one hand, he serves on the negotiation task force. On the other hand, he recently wrote approvingly about Tibetans’ wish to “witness the unfurling of our national flag… on the rooftop of the Potala Palace.” This candidate should take the opportunity to explain his position to the voters.

There are other critical issues that are not yet being addressed in the Tibetan political discourse: How will the next Kalon Tripa counter Chinese subterfuge over the Dalai Lama’s next reincarnation? What will he or she do about improving the quality of Tibetan education and the economic situation in the settlements? How will the Kalon Tripa improve standards in the Tibetan civil service, which requires making entry, compensation, and advancement more competitive? What about ways the government’s financial base can be strengthened? How will the candidate view and shape Tibetan immigration to the West? Will the candidate promote any changes in how Tibetan democracy is structured, including how chitues are selected and what role political parties should have?

These are all big-picture issues that, so far, have not been addressed by the potential candidates for Kalon Tripa. Therefore, it is not fair for Lobsang-la to blame the voters for complacency, when the potential candidates have given the voters little to be excited about.

III. What Does His Article Tell Us About the Potential Candidate?

It is possible to draw some preliminary conclusions about this candidate from his article.

A. Questions of Political Maturity

First, this candidate has not yet shown an ability to diagnose political problems and develop effective cures. This candidate chose to address the issue of low voter turnout. However, he proposes procedural tweaks rather than necessary big picture solutions. Moreover, of those insufficient tweaks, some are politically naïve or poorly thought through. Tibetans do not need to be reminded that the nation is at a critical juncture, especially with His Holiness’ advancing age and stated desire to retire. There are many “big picture” issues that need serious engagement and plans. Tibetans need a Kalon Tripa with vision and political maturity.

B. Questions of Sincere Idealism

Second, Tibetans need a Kalon Tripa whose leadership will inspire the best in the Tibetan people. That leader must encourage idealism, fight cynicism, and deftly meld the highest principles with the realism necessary to get things done. In that respect, we are bothered by Lobsang-la’s argument that Tibetans should embrace democracy to “directly challenge Zhu Weiqun and the Chinese government.”

Tibetan democracy is about the political future of the Tibetan nation. Tibetans should not define themselves simply in opposition to their enemies, especially people as vile as Zhu. That only drags Tibetans down.

Tibet is presently in an existential struggle with the People’s Republic of China, but democratization must be undertaken for its own merits, not as a cheap public relations tool. One day when Tibetans regain their homeland, democracy must be about the highest ideals of freedom, not a tainted political weapon against some long-forgotten hatemonger. Lobsang-la appears to lose sight of that.

C. Questions of Nuanced Thinking and Ability to Unify

Third, we are troubled by Lobsang-la’s invocation of former President George Bush’s formulation of either being “with us or against us.” President Bush did immense damage to unity and goodwill among the American people, and people worldwide, by insinuating that anyone who disagreed with him was on the side of the “evildoers.” The last thing Tibetans need is a Kalon Tripa who adopts a simplistic, black-and-white worldview.

IV. Conclusion

In conclusion, Lobsang-la has wrongly suggested that democracy is a public relations tool, rather than a higher principle in its own right. He has unthinkingly or – even worse – purposefully invoked a cynical and simplistic worldview. And he has not shown an ability to diagnose the big-picture issues that the Tibetan nation must deal with. On technical issues that he focuses on, he has some good ideas. But other ideas display an undue emphasis on abstract theory and a lack of real-world political experience.

Lobsang-la tells us in his article’s autobiographical blurb that he “earned Ph.D. degree and became not only the first among six million Tibetans but also from Himalayan region including Bhutan, Nepal and Mongolia.” But serving in the highest elected office of the Tibetan nation requires more than academic qualities divorced from the big picture and on-the-ground realities. It also requires political adeptness, principled idealism, and political vision. The next Kalon Tripa will need all of these qualities to lead the Tibetan people.

* * *

Article originally published in The Tibetan Political Review, on June 11, 2010.

The Tibetan people are confronting a series of critical issues including the Kalon Tripa election, improving democratization, independence versus autonomy, and visions for the future of Tibet. TPR is an attempt to create a forum where these issues can be subjected to reasoned, analytical, and unhampered discussion.

The journal’s current featured issue is the Kalon Tripa election. TPR sets out all the nominated candidates for Kalon Tripa and their available policy positions, provides editorials and an open forum for public commentary, and offers a chance for the candidates to respond. The journal’s only rule is that unfounded personal attacks are not permitted.

The journal’s goal is to ensure that political debates are about issues, not personalities. The Editorial Board members do not hold themselves out as any sort of “experts” but simply as Tibetans who hope to contribute to the national discussion and who invite all other Tibetans to join them.

TPR is run by an Editorial Board consisting of Nima R.T. Binara, Wangchuk D. Shakabpa, Bhuchung D. Sonam, and Tenzin Wangyal.