Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:42, 1 February 2007

Why is the Tibetan Government in Exile (the only legitimate government of Tibet) called an 'theocratic government'? The Government in Exile has a democratic system since the Tibetan Constitution was signed by the Dalai Lama in 1960. Although H.H. the Dalai Lama is still the Head of State, the political powers of the Government in Exile is in the hands of the Kashag and the Assembly of Tibetan People's Deputies, who are chosen by the Tibetan people in exile.

Any religous leader that is also a chief of state that can't be voted in or out constitutes a Theocracy,,,, that is why it is called a 'theocratic government'.

The Vatican City can be assimulated as well but since the Papal states were assumed into Italy in the mid 19th century, there is no real land to govern. since the 900 people that live there are pretty much "of the cloth"...

Iran has been an Islamic theocracy since the Pahlavi monarchy regime was overthrown on Feb. 11, 1979.

Saudi Arabia was an absolute monarchy until 1992, at which time the Saud royal family introduced the country's first constitution. The legal system is based on the sharia (Islamic law). Not much different...

So lets wrap up... If it's looks like an apple, is red and tastes like an apple, it might be----- an apple. call it a macintoch or a crab apple or a jonathan, but it's still an applechaz171 16:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

By that definition the United Kingdom is a 'theocratic government'. After all, the Queen is head of state and governor of the church of England, and can only be removed if there's a sudden revolution. Tom 18:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

But the Queen has no real power over what goes on at all. She doesn't lead her people, she doesn't propose laws, she doesn't suggest what her people should be doing - she just reads a bit of paper once a year and sits about for the rest of it. Also, she's not the religious leader of the entire state - there are plenty of other religions represented proportionally in all of the countries that the Queen "lords it over". Unless there's been a major conspiracy all along, where the Queen helps get a Prime Minister elected only if s/he does her bidding, I don't see what relevance your comment has. (82.34.144.139 00:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC))

I think the more relevant point is that the Queen is the temporal head of the established church, and not the spiritual head. Were she both, then I think Tomothy would have a point. Fishhead64 06:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Redirects

Why was Free Tibet movement redirected here? I think that there is a huge differnce between the government of Tibet and the movement of people all over the Earth. I for one do not support any sort of governmental rule, but agree with the claims of the movement to free Tibet and Tibetan people from China's rule. Beta m 11:48, 2004 Sep 3 (UTC)

I have changed Free Tibet movement from a #REDIRECT to a real page. I have placed links to this page where appropriate. But more information on the movement itself is necessary, so if anyone is willing to contribute please do so. Beta m 11:10, 2004 Sep 6 (UTC)

Why is Tibet independence movement redirected here? Shorne 04:20, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm going to change it to the redirect to Free Tibet movement... unless somebody minds. Beta_M , | (Ë-Mail)

"retaining their freedom until the 1951 Chinese occupation." the word "freedom" is obviously loaded with a POV. How "free" (in today's sense) could a theocratic society based on serfdom be? Should the word "sovereignity" be used instead?

While I understand the issue taken with the word "freedom", doesn't "sovereignty" simply mean "Freedom from External Control", or "Complete independence and self-government" (dictionary.com)?

Freedom may be considered by some to be a "loaded word", but it is used properly here when referring to the government attempting to maintain its freedom —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ebs2002 (talk • contribs) 06:22, 16 December 2005.

Free Tibet. If tibet is to be 'free' It cannot revert back to the Theocratic serfdom it had before. The Government in exile is claiming soveignty over "historic Tibet". Land which hasn't been under their control for over 700 years. China claims all of Tibet based on the Mongol Conquest.

China may be in the wrong for their imperialistic assumtion of Tibet, but if Tibet is liberated, how will this benefit anyone if they revert to a system of government that was obsolete 1200 years ago?chaz171 16:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I would say that that is up to the Tibetians to work out for themselves, to figure out what kind of government they want, without having to deal with another nation and culture colonizing them.Rbl 02:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits

I have renamed this article and rewritten parts of it baed on information I have acquired during the visit to Australia of Samhdong Rinpoche. I removed the description of the Adminstration as "theocratic" because it has an elected legislature and an elected head of government. It is no more theocratic than the UK. How the lamas ruled Tibet in the past is no longer relevant, because the Dalai Lama has been committed to a democratic government for an independent or autonomous Tibet for at least 30 years. I am seeking further advice on which areas of "historical Tibet" the CTA now claims jurisdiction over, and indeed (since the Dalai Lama is no longer seeking Tibetan independence) whether it claims jurisdiction at all. I noted during the visit that Samhdong Rinpoche did not claim to be "Prime Minister of Tibet", only "Cabinet Head of the CTA." Adam 05:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

This article is hopelessly biased against the Chinese government

It makes no attempt to address the claims of the Chinese government, instead simply states that the Chinese claim is illegitimate. POV to the extreme. The name of this article should be also be renamed to "Tibetan Government in Exile" as that is the common name. --67.175.167.158 22:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

When you become a registered Wikipedian I will be happy to discuss this matter with you. In the meantime I will revert your edits. Adam 23:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I have made 2 revisions. First, I changed the word "Tibet is under the control of the People's Republic of China" to "Tibet is under the administration of" as the latter is more neutral yet accurate. Second, I have added the counter statement that the Central Tibetan Administration (CTA) is not recognized as a government by any other governments directly to the lead paragraph. Putting that counter statement in the second to last paragraph is deliberate concealment of factual and critical information regarding the Central Tibetan Administration, and is anything but NPOV. Mamin27 01:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for registering. I have no objections to those two edits.
• I will however revert any attempt to describe the CTA as "theocratic". The Dalai Lama has renounced his former position as a theocrat and is now the ceremonial head of the CTA - although of course his real influence is still very great. The actual head of the CTA is the elected head of the cabinet - which is more than China can claim.
• You said earlier that the article "makes no attempt to address the claims of the Chinese government, instead simply states that the Chinese claim is illegitimate." First, it is not this article's job to address China's claim to Tibet. This is an article about the CTA, not about the status of Tibet. Secondly, the article does not say that "the Chinese claim is illegitimate." That is obviously the view of the Tibetans in exile, but this article neither endorses nor rejects that view.
• I agree that the CTA is commonly called the "Tibetan Government in Exile". However that is not its correct name, and is also seriously misleading, because the CTA does not in fact claim to be the government of Tibet. It claims to be an administration and a representative body for Tibetans in exile, which it is. Adam 02:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the assessment that the CTA does not claim to be the Government of Tibet. One can browse its constitutional provisions and see that it defines "citizenship" as any Tibetans by blood, including those who live currently in Chinese Tibet. By those provisions, the intent is clearly defined as seeking representation for all Tibetans, and thus representing their interests in exile.

NPOV dispute

I agree with Mamin that the statement that the CTA is not recognised by any other government should appear near the beginning. However, I don't think the statement, "This does not imply recognition of the CTA as a government" is necessary; it's redundant with what is said two sentences earlier.—Nat Krause 02:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)