The Monk and the Gun: Enforcing a Democracy

Henrique Bravo draws insights on the broader Bhutanese political scene within his review of Pawo Choyning Dorji’s The Monk and the Gun (2023).

The beautiful Bhutanese landscapes that we have grown accustomed to from director Pawo Choyning Dorji are as prominent in his new movie The Monk and the Gun (2023) as they were in his previous Oscar-nominated movie, Lunana: A Yak in the Classroom (2019). The scenic shots are the backdrop for this semi-fictional movie set in 2006, which follows the story of a monk in search of not one, but two guns. The Lama of Ura’s town, played by Kelsang Choejay, who is the actual town’s Lama, sends off a monk (Tandin Wangchuk) in search of two guns because according to him:

—   Things need to be made right again.

Back in 2001, the king of Bhutan (Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuck; the 5th King) decreed that Bhutan would become democratic. Going from a political system where one person has complete ruling over a country to one where the population chooses its rulers might seem counterintuitive for a king to decree. This, however, is a king that is as progressive as a monarch could be, having amongst other things, decriminalised homosexuality, implemented the famous Gross National Happiness index, and been a fierce advocate for the conservation of nature. Therefore, the change from a monarchy to a democracy, which took place over seven years, was nothing but peaceful and well thought-out. The final act that was needed to make this democratic dream come true was an election, where the carefully drafted constitution would be enacted. But what if you had never voted in your life? Surely it can’t be that difficult, I hear you say. But what if a whole country has never voted? Yes, more challenging indeed. Not to fear, the king was a man with a plan. Before the actual election of 2008 came into play, a mock election took place just over a year before. And it’s this mock election that is at the heart of The Monk and the Gun’s story. Well, the mock election, a monk, and a gun…

But before jumping the gun and going straight into the movie, a little background is required on Bhutan’s firearms policy. Guns and ammunition are banned from entering the Buddhist nation, which is part of the government’s effort to maintain a harmonious and peaceful society, and is also in line with the Buddhist principles of non-violence. People who do own firearms need to have a license for it, meaning that guns in the country of Bhutan are few and far between. Not an easy job for a monk that needs to find not one, but two guns in the space of three days. But, as luck would have it, our monk is tipped off about an antique gun not too far, which he then sets on retrieving. This gun is, however, the same one that an American called Ronald Colman is procuring, having travelled to Bhutan specifically for it. The nationality of the gun-procuring foreigner is not a coincidence, as Americans are famous for their modernisation, democracy and guns. These themes are embodied in the character of Ronald, but also in the many references made to US culture, including products like Coke (or “black water”), or the several scenes of 007 movies that are being played in the background throughout the movie.

With international eyes set on Bhutan to witness its first election, the latest step into the modern era, government officials wanted to make sure that the country’s population knew how to cast their votes. Covering the entirety of the country, we see these officials explaining and trying to convince everyone they come across that voting is something good and progressive for them and country. These scenes are peppered with humour and irony, as the concept of democracy and what it entails seems to miss both the population and the officials that are trying to explain it. Most of the scenes take place in a rural town of Bhutan called Ura, which at the beginning of the movie only has 10% of its eligible voters registered. Due to its low numbers, the woman in charge of the mock election goes personally to Ura to try and sway the local population to register and vote. There are many instances where we see government officials trying to convince the local population by arguing that voting is a gift from the king towards the development of the nation, without giving any clear justifications, but people are not easily convinced:

—   I told you, people around the world fight for these changes we are now gifted.

—   Yes, but if we don't have to fight for it, maybe we don't really need it.

Indeed. If you have always lived your life under a consistently progressive and peaceful ruler, then there’s no reason to believe that life will improve by changing things. But this progressive ruler was indeed a ruler with foresight, trying to implement a system that would harness the full potential of the population and that would continue the modernisation and development of the country in a peaceful way. But for many people this change of the status quo is unnecessary, and even detrimental. The reluctance in changing to a new system is embodied in characters that don’t see the advantage in adopting something that seems to go against the morals and values of the Bhutanese, with many scenes of local people confronting government officials, or even ludicrous debates between locals as examples.

The slow modernisation of Bhutan is something that its people have had to grapple with in recent years and that is prevalent in the movie. TV and internet were only introduced in 1999, making Bhutan the last country in the world to do so. This late introduction was a deliberate move from country’s officials to try and reduce external influence and prioritise national values. And maybe they were on to something, because only four years after internet and TV entered people’s houses, a new wave of criminality swept over the country. By the time the movie finished I was left thinking whether the way democracies are currently set up around the world is indeed the best way. The sharp contrast between America’s democracy and that of Bhutan’s appear to be on polar opposites, but maybe there’s something to be learned from both? Perhaps there’s a way to embrace modernisation without having to sacrifice core values and principles such as peace and happiness?

The Bhutanese just elected a new liberal government less than three months ago (10th January 2024). This new government is set on boosting the economy and tackle the high unemployment rates, particularly for the younger demographic. Whilst the democracy of this small country is not yet perfect, the government was elected in free, fair and credible polls, with an attendance of 65% of the population. It seems like the people of Bhutan have not only learned how to vote, they are using it to try and make a difference for their lives, whilst still navigating the difficult waters of modernisation.

The constant struggle between tradition and what is perceived as progress is perhaps the most prevalent theme throughout the movie, and it’s at the core of the pursuit for the two guns. That is why viewers are left wondering until the very end what the purpose of the guns actually is, hoping for a finale that will shed light on whether progress or tradition will be the winner. The ending is in light with the rest of the movie, humorous but with a message, revealing that whilst Bhutan looks to the outside world for inspiration in this on-going struggle for modernisation, it will still manage to find its own way of making things right.