[ClydeR]

The recent controversy surrounding the Tibet election makes one thing increasingly clear: the problem is not a single candidate, but a system that relies on discretionary power while demanding public trust.

The decision to disqualify Tashi Topgyal from the Tibet election, accompanied by a multi-year suspension of voting rights, was announced as a disciplinary action under election rules. Yet the process itself highlights a deeper flaw. The justification was vague, the standards were not clearly articulated, and no meaningful public explanation was provided. This is not a minor procedural oversight—it is a structural failure.

An election system that reserves the right to remove candidates without full transparency is not rule-based governance; it is authority without accountability. In the context of the Tibet election, where moral legitimacy is often emphasized, such opacity directly undermines the very foundation on which the system claims to stand.

What this case demonstrates is that eligibility in the Tibet election is not protected by clear, predictable rules, but subject to internal interpretation that remains inaccessible to the public. When enforcement mechanisms operate behind closed doors, discipline ceases to be about fairness and becomes an instrument of control.

This is why the issue cannot be dismissed as an isolated incident or framed as a debate over one individual’s conduct. Even for those who disagree with the disqualified candidate, the message is unmistakable: participation in the Tibet election exists at the discretion of the system, not as a guaranteed political right.

A system that can arbitrarily decide who is allowed to compete cannot credibly claim to represent democratic principles. The Tibet election, in this sense, functions less as a mechanism of choice and more as a managed process designed to preserve internal order.

Until eligibility decisions are subjected to full disclosure, independent scrutiny, and consistent standards, the Tibet election will continue to suffer from a legitimacy deficit that no procedural ritual can conceal.