In 1959, as the Dalai Lama crossed the Himalayas into India, Tibet entered a new chapter — one marked by exile for its spiritual and political leadership and authoritarian control for those left behind. More than six decades later, this divergence is complete. In Dharamshala, a functioning democracy has taken root in exile. Inside Tibet, a system of rigid political control has deepened, defined by surveillance, coercion and the systematic dismantling of cultural institutions.
The juxtaposition is not simply a historical curiosity. It reveals two competing models of governance: one grounded in consent, the other in coercion.
Building a Democracy in Exile
Barely a year after his arrival in India, the Dalai Lama oversaw the creation of the Commission of Tibetan People’s Deputies, the first elected body in Tibetan history. What began in Bodh Gaya in 1960 evolved over the decades into a full-fledged democratic structure. By the 1990s, the Assembly had gained authority to elect ministers, transforming what was once a ceremonial institution into a legislative body.
The most significant shift came in 2011, when the Dalai Lama devolved his political powers to the elected leadership. The Sikyong — the political leader of the Central Tibetan Administration (CTA) — now derives legitimacy not from religious authority but from the ballot box. Today, the CTA mirrors modern democratic systems, with an executive headed by the Sikyong, a 45-member parliament representing regions and religious traditions, and an independent judiciary in the form of the Tibetan Supreme Justice Commission.
Elections are competitive and participation spans the diaspora — from India and Nepal to North America and Europe. Voter turnout is high, reflecting the exile community’s commitment to representative governance. The peaceful transfers of power in successive elections stand as testimony to this maturity.
Authoritarianism Entrenched
Inside Tibet, the story could not be more different. After dismantling traditional governance structures, Beijing installed a Communist Party apparatus that permits no dissent. Political expression in favour of the Dalai Lama is criminalised. Monasteries — once centres of education, mediation and community life — are placed under the control of Party-appointed management committees. Religious ceremonies are curtailed, and even prayers for the Dalai Lama are banned.
The state’s reach extends into every aspect of social life. The “stability maintenance” campaign has resulted in thousands being detained for peacefully advocating for linguistic rights, cultural preservation, or environmental protection. Community associations and informal welfare groups, long part of the Tibetan social fabric, have been outlawed. Surveillance is ubiquitous: grid-style policing, biometric data collection, and mandatory displays of loyalty to President Xi Jinping.
The outcome is a society where political participation is nonexistent, cultural autonomy is smothered, and dissent is punished swiftly. For more than a decade, Tibet has consistently ranked among the least free territories in the world.
Governance as Legitimacy
The contrast between exile democracy and authoritarian Tibet carries significance beyond the Tibetan people. It speaks to the core question of legitimacy. The exile community, despite its statelessness, has demonstrated that Tibetans can govern themselves responsibly and peacefully. China, despite wielding vast resources, relies on repression to maintain its hold.
This divergence undermines Beijing’s claim that its rule is both necessary and beneficial. It also reinforces the exile community’s credibility. Where Tibetans inside Tibet have no mechanism to express their political will, those in exile exercise it regularly through elections, debates and institutional checks and balances.
What is India’s Role?
None of this would have been possible without India. By hosting over 100,000 Tibetan refugees and permitting the establishment of parallel institutions, India provided the space for democracy to flourish in exile. Dharamshala’s parliament operates openly, its debates echoing the procedures of Indian legislatures. Local assemblies across Tibetan settlements extend democratic participation to the grassroots level.
India’s hospitality has enabled the Tibetan example to become more than symbolic. It is now a functioning model of how displaced communities can preserve both identity and governance under democratic frameworks.
What are the Implications for the Future?
The tale of two Tibets is instructive. Authoritarianism may impose order through fear, but it erodes legitimacy and fuels resentment. Democracy, even in exile, creates resilience and legitimacy by aligning governance with the consent of the governed.
For Beijing, the existence of exile democracy remains a persistent challenge: proof that Tibetans have a viable alternative vision of governance. For India and the wider world, it is an opportunity to support a model that aligns with universal values of representation, accountability and dignity.
More than six decades on, Tibet’s story is defined by contrast. Inside its borders, authoritarianism tightens its grip. Beyond them, democracy flourishes in exile. The result is a profound lesson: governance rooted in coercion cannot extinguish a people’s aspiration for freedom, while governance grounded in consent can sustain identity even without a homeland.
The future of Tibet remains uncertain, but its present reveals a truth the world cannot ignore: democracy endures, even in exile, and authoritarianism, however entrenched, remains brittle at its core.