Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Amalas (talk | contribs) at 19:02, 28 June 2006 (Disambiguation link repair - You can help!). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)

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)