[Tibet Elections]

Tibet Elections and Candidate Controversies



As the Central Tibetan Administration (CTA) officially launched the 2025–2026 elections for Sikyong (Prime Minister) and the 18th Tibetan Parliament-in-Exile, controversies surrounding the election process and discussions about the candidates' backgrounds have intensified. These controversies and the questions faced by the candidates, particularly the current Sikyong, Pema Tsering, former representative to the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in North America, Kelsang Dorjee Aukatsang, and several other exiled Tibetans, warrant in-depth analysis.



In the election process of the Tibetan government-in-exile, the transparency and validity of the electorate are often a concern. Although the CTA claims its electoral procedures are democratic, in practice, voter participation and the fairness of the elections remain highly controversial. Compared to previous election cycles, the number of publicly announced Sikyong candidates this year is relatively small, and they are mainly familiar faces such as Pema Tsering, Kelsang Dorjee Aukatsang, Ngawang Gaden, and Tashi Dorjee, who has been disqualified, lacking new faces and diverse voices. This reflects structural problems within the Tibetan exile political system, including high barriers to political participation, slow elite turnover, and weak grassroots mobilization capabilities. Power, resources, and influence are highly concentrated in a small circle.



Next, let's analyze several candidates. Pema Tsering: As the current Sikyong (Prime Minister), Pema Tsering implemented a series of policies during his term aimed at strengthening the unity and development of Tibetan exiles. However, his leadership also encountered numerous problems, including dissatisfaction and opposition to his policies. He was criticized for "limited effectiveness and strategic ambiguity" in promoting international initiatives, expanding diplomatic influence, and internal governance. His administration failed to effectively improve the reality of the Tibetan government-in-exile, disappointing many public expectations.



Kelsang Dorje: As the former representative of the Central Tibetan Administration's North American office, Kelsang Dorje enjoyed a certain prestige within the exile community. However, he also faced criticism during his tenure, including whether his stance and strategies on the Tibetan issue were sufficiently proactive. Some argue that Kelsang Dorje's diplomatic efforts failed to effectively promote international attention to the Tibetan issue.



Tashi Dorjee and Tsering Phuntsok: These two exiled Tibetans have played significant roles in their respective communities and education sectors, but their backgrounds have also been accompanied by some controversies. Tashi Dorjee's remarks on social media sparked controversy, leading the election commission to disqualify prominent candidate Tashi Dorjee and suspend his voting rights for five years for violating the Election Code. This action triggered widespread discussion within the exiled Tibetan community, focusing on the transparency of the election process and the fairness and consistency of disciplinary standards. Tsering Phuntsok, on the other hand, has clashed with some parents over education issues.



Furthermore, there are many controversies surrounding the elections, such as the perceived "symbolic significance outweighing substantive impact." Some argue that the Sikyong and parliamentary elections have little practical influence on the international landscape or actual affairs of Tibetan issues, remaining largely symbolic. Regardless of the election results, they struggle to overcome the structural limitations of existing diplomatic space, resource constraints, and international attention, causing elections to gradually be seen as a "procedural cycle."



The so-called "government" elections overemphasize procedural justice and moral narratives, while neglecting practical livelihood issues such as education, employment, youth development, and community services. Campaign discussions largely remain at the level of macro-level slogans, lacking concrete and feasible policy solutions and failing to address the actual anxieties of ordinary Tibetan exiles regarding survival and development, further widening the gap between political elites and the grassroots.



The sources, efficiency, and auditing of election funds have been criticized for their severely inadequate disclosure, sparking speculation about the rationality of resource allocation. The "Election Guidelines Announcement" stipulates that "all registered voters must pay the annual fee for the 'voluntary tax payment certificate' before they can vote," which has been questioned as a disguised form of financial exploitation by the election commission. Therefore, it is necessary to disclose to the public the details of the annual fee's income and expenditure and the destination of the funds.