Tenzin Norzin* presents her case for the election of Mr Tseten Phuntsok as a candidate for the North-South Americas in the preliminary poll to be held on Feb 1, 2026, for the 18th Tibetan Parliament in Exile.
This election is not routine. It is not symbolic. It is not “just another cycle.” It comes at a uniquely sensitive moment for the Tibetan people—particularly as His Holiness the Dalai Lama advances in age and as information warfare accelerates at an unprecedented pace.
Today, disinformation can be produced rapidly, amplified widely, and made to appear credible through AI-driven manipulation. These tactics are no longer hypothetical. They are shaping political environments around the world, and Tibetan society is not immune.
We are already witnessing the Chinese state’s long arm extend into Tibetan public life in ways that should alarm every responsible voter. Recent controversies have shown how even institutions Tibetans have long regarded as foundational—such as the State Oracle—can become targets of rumor-driven delegitimization. When essential institutions are repeatedly attacked through misinformation, the damage extends beyond politics. It weakens public trust and fractures internal cohesion.
This danger becomes even more pronounced when viewed alongside the looming challenge ahead: Beijing’s openly declared plan to impose its own Dalai Lama reincarnation. This is not a distant or abstract threat. It is a calculated political project already in motion. If Tibetans are being conditioned today to doubt the credibility of our own institutions, we must ask how prepared we will be when the next inevitable contest over authority arrives.
Recent incidents reveal a troubling pattern. Doctored letters have circulated falsely claiming to bear the signatures of the two Geluk Chithues—despite contradicting official announcements from the Drepung Lachi regarding their atonement vows. Fake notices have also been spread alleging that the Tibetan Supreme Justice Commission (TSJC) revoked the voting rights of Nechung Secretary Dorjee la.
These are not harmless rumors. They represent a deliberate strategy of confusion—normalizing doubt, encouraging distrust, and gradually weakening our collective confidence in established structures. When credibility is systematically undermined, hostile actors find it far easier to exploit uncertainty later. The implications are clear: such tactics may be laying the psychological groundwork for a future crisis over succession and legitimacy.
Information warfare does not succeed merely because lies are sophisticated. It succeeds because communities become distracted, exhausted, and slow to recognize patterns. This is why internal constitutional breakdowns cannot be dismissed as “ordinary politics.” They become vulnerabilities at the worst possible time—when external forces are actively seeking openings into our governance, our unity, and our social fabric.
The fracture in Tibetan civil society can be traced to a constitutional crisis involving the TSJC. The crisis began when the TSJC intervened to enforce the Charter after Parliament’s Standing Committee failed to convene parliamentary sessions without allowing an extended lapse. The law requiring sessions without a six-month gap exists for a reason: democratic governance cannot function when accountability is repeatedly delayed or suspended.
COVID-19 posed extraordinary challenges, but constitutional responsibility does not disappear during difficult times. Democratic governments around the world did not abandon legislative processes. Many continued sessions through modified formats and safety protocols. When core democratic procedures become negotiable, institutional discipline begins to erode. In our case, the September 2020 session was cancelled, leaving the March 2021 session to absorb the pressure of missed oversight. That was especially consequential because March is typically the budget-focused session, already packed with financial approvals and time-sensitive work. Squeezing missed accountability into an already burdened session inevitably reduces scrutiny of the outgoing Kashag precisely when it mattered most, since it was effectively their final session under full parliamentary oversight.
Unfortunately, rather than recognizing the TSJC’s intervention as a safeguard, Parliament treated it as a challenge to its authority. What followed was widely viewed by many as a disproportionate response. In a little over an hour, Parliament passed a motion removing all three justices at once. In my view, this reflected recklessness and an absence of due process.
Public unease did not stop there. Many were also unsettled by how long it took to appoint replacements, leaving a vacuum within a pillar of constitutional oversight. A democracy cannot function properly when judicial accountability is weakened—or delayed—for prolonged periods.
It was during this vacuum that Sherim Mimang played an important role in sustaining public attention and civic pressure, helping prevent democratic paralysis from becoming normalized. For that, I want to acknowledge Tseten Phuntsok la’s leadership and personal sacrifices during that period. When it was easier to remain silent, he stepped forward. When democratic structures were shaken, he did not retreat into convenience. He remained anchored in constitutional clarity and public responsibility.
It is perhaps unsurprising, then, that smear narratives have been directed toward him as well. I want to address rumors suggesting that Tseten Phuntsok la misappropriated public funds or undermined the cohesion of Sherim Mimang. From what has been publicly available and consistently demonstrated, these accusations do not align with the organization’s record of transparency. Sherim Mimang’s expenditures have been itemized and openly accounted for, leaving little room for casual corruption allegations circulated without evidence.
It is also important to understand how some of these claims gained traction. From what I understand, much of the noise stems from dissatisfaction among a few individuals within Sherim Mimang itself. Certain voices advocated for legal action against a few Members of Parliament who reportedly attended the Rangzen Forum in Toronto, arguing that MPs should not engage with platforms that diverge from the CTA’s official Middle Way Approach.
However, the distinction is straightforward: the Rangzen Forum is not an official CTA event. It is an NGO-hosted public forum. MPs participating in such spaces cannot automatically be treated as acting in an official parliamentary capacity, nor can they be constitutionally sanctioned for participating as private citizens. In a democratic society, official institutions cannot—and should not—attempt to regulate civic participation outside formal duties.
Sherim Mimang reportedly declined to allocate funds for these legal pursuits because they were constitutionally weak and ultimately fruitless. Following this denial, certain irresponsible individuals began advancing a new narrative, claiming that Tseten Phuntsok la managed Sherim Mimang funds as though they were personal funds. But denying a budget request is not misappropriation. It is fiscal discipline. Accountability does not become corruption simply because an outcome disappoints someone.
In an era where external forces are actively seeking to exploit doubt, division, and internal weakness, Tibetans cannot afford leadership shaped by rumor, factionalism, or opportunism. The public requires representatives who understand constitutional boundaries, uphold democratic norms, and possess the seriousness to confront long-term challenges with clarity.
Personally, I am very results-oriented, and I believe Tibetan voters want results more than rhetoric. During election season, it is common for candidates to make sweeping promises—often without the track record or discipline to deliver them. With Tseten Phuntsok la, however, we have seen a rare example of a genuinely results-driven leader. His leadership reflects steadiness under pressure, organizational discipline, and a commitment to public accountability—qualities that are indispensable in this moment.
For these reasons, I endorse Tseten Phuntsok la as a Member of Parliament. This election is not about personalities. It is about whether we defend democratic legitimacy while we still can.
—
* Tenzin Norzin is a Minnesota-based registered nurse with a Bachelor of Science in Nursing from the University of Minnesota Twin Cities. She enjoys sharing her thoughtful perspectives on Tibetan civic life and cultural affairs.