Why Would Trump Want To Ban Bhutanese People?
The proposed list of countries for the "Muslim ban" reboot has been leaked. It includes a small Buddhist kingdom in the Himalayas.

One of President Donald Trump's acts during his first term was the so-called Muslim ban. Building on a 2015 campaign promise to enact "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on," he banned all entry by seven Muslim-majority nationalities. After extensive court battles and airport chaos, the ban list shifted around and grew to include some non-Muslim adversary countries.
Trump has promised to "bring back the travel ban" in his second term and ordered the State Department to identify countries whose security situation would "warrant a partial or full suspension on the admission of nationals." The new proposed ban list was leaked to The New York Times over the weekend. Along with classic adversaries such as Iran and North Korea, and war-torn countries such as Syria and Yemen, the list also includes the tranquil Himalayan mountain kingdom of Bhutan.
The Land of the Thunder Dragon, an isolated country of less than 800,000 people, doesn't have any internal or external wars at the moment. It suffers from "relatively little crime," according to the U.S. State Department's own reports. Although there is no U.S. embassy (and almost no other foreign embassy) in Bhutan, the U.S. ambassador to neighboring India "maintains frequent and friendly communications with the Royal Bhutanese Embassy in New Delhi," the State Department reports.
The Trump administration has not offered any explanation of why Bhutan is in its crosshairs. The White House did not respond to a request for comment. The State Department referred Reason to comments by spokeswoman Tammy Bruce, who told reporters on Monday that "what people are looking at over these past several days is not a list that exists here or that is being acted on. There is a review, as we know, through the president's executive order for us to look at the nature of what's going to help keep America safer in dealing with the issue of visas and who's allowed into the country."
The Bhutanese, a local newspaper, reported after The New York Times report came out that Bhutan was moved from the immediate ban list to a probationary "yellow list." An "official source" told The Bhutanese that Bhutan was listed because of its high U.S. visa overstay rate.
Around 43 percent of Bhutanese visitors overstayed their visas in FY 2022, including 60 percent of tourists and business travelers, according to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's statistics. But the percentage was high because the number of Bhutanese visitors was so small to begin with. There were 112 overstays out of 255 visitors total from Bhutan in FY 2022. The following fiscal year, there were only 72 overstays out of 371 visitors total from Bhutan. There were only 17 Bhutanese people among the 2.58 million foreigners deported in FY 2022.
Ironically, Bhutan has exactly the kind of immigration and trade policy that the Trump camp might prefer. The Bhutanese monarchy has maintained an isolationist stance to preserve the country's nature and Buddhist culture. Trade, tourism, and migration are strictly limited; in fact, television was illegal in Bhutan until 1999. Scoffing at foreign economists, the former King Jigme Singye Wangchuck famously declared in 1972 that "gross national happiness is more important than gross domestic product."
In 1985, the Bhutanese government declared that anyone who could not prove residence from 1958 or earlier was an illegal immigrant. Over the next few years, Bhutan faced unrest from the Nepalese-speaking Lhotshampa minority, who were largely left off the citizenship rolls. In response, the government expelled over 100,000 people, around a sixth of the population of Bhutan at the time. A vast majority of these refugees were resettled in the United States through a program that lasted until 2016.
That resettlement program may be another reason why the Trump administration is now targeting Bhutanese travelers, The Bhutanese speculated. In 2023, several Nepalese officials were arrested for a corruption scheme in which several hundred Nepalese citizens paid to be falsely listed as Lhotshampa refugees so they would get resettled abroad. But a ban on travel from Bhutan wouldn't have stopped the scheme, which concerned people living in Nepal using Nepalese refugee documents.
The confusion and lack of transparency, of course, may be the point. The Trump administration has tried to assert nearly unlimited power over the border and deportation. Reviving the nationality ban through an arbitrary, opaque bureaucratic process is exactly the kind of measure that makes that point.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
The Trump administration has tried to assert nearly unlimited power...
You didn't complain when Democrats did the same thing you leftist hypocrite. That invalidates your criticism and excuses whatever Trump does.
The Nepali "Lhotshampa" minority had been there for hundreds and in places, thousands, of years. The Bhutan government used 1953 in paperwork and pointed to a migration in the 1800s but those were excuses.
These weren't a bunch of illegals who snuck over the border and were breaking laws, in some of the parts they were expelled from they were the natives.
This was an ethnic cleansing by the Bhutan government.
That phony, sleazy "national happiness index" was to cover for Bhutan getting rid of its very own Jewish problem.
Of course a Nazi like Sarcasmic approves.
Your strawmen are old, tired, rotted, and full of bugs and shit.
Broken.
My suspicion is that someone from the admin said we need to ban some himalayan nation, they probably meant Nepal but their assistant who moved from Breitbart could not spot it on map and instead found Bhutan.
No one really comes to USA from Bhutan (<200 people) so the ban is pretty much irrelevant other than keeping someone at Department of State employed.
It might be a strategic mistake to do so as it borders China and you might want to keep the country in your good books and might need free movement of people for strategic reasons.
But yeah, this is a nativist government so...
First of all Bhutan has not been banned. The country purportedly turned up on a list according to anonymous sources. And the reason has nothing to do with religion or geography. As cited in the article the percentage overstaying is extremely high raising red flags in any analysis. No conspiracy or animus required. The entire article is a waste of time for anyone who bothered to read it. Time we will never get back.
The truth really doesn't matter to these ActBlue refugees. You can tell by the fact that he calls the administration "nativist".
Sure Trump's wife, Vance's in-laws, Musk, Patel's parents, etc. are all legal immigrants, but somehow they're xenophobic because they don't think Venezuelan gang members and Mexican narcotraficantes who snuck in have a right to be there.
This sounds nonsensical sadsak.
Using the term “Muslim Ban” marks you as an unserious disingenuous twit
He knows it is a lie but just can't help it.
Especially when the full list covers so many non-muslim countries.
https://x.com/defense_civil25/status/1900705165629669559
Update: Draft 3-tier Trump travel BAN to hit 43 countries! — NYT
NO ENTRY for 11 ‘red’ countries!
Visas for Russians, Belarusians and Pakistanis ‘sharply restricted!’
Many African nations on ‘yellow’ list!
[image of list]
Did you see what the Dalai Lama did with that kid?
Big hitter, the Lama... long.
It's in the hole!
The economy crashed there after the market for Bhutan lighters dried up.
I overstayed my Visa™ and was charged a late payment fee.
But Trump is supposed to ignore courts!
This has only ever been true if you're stupid enough to think Venezuela and North Korea are "Muslim countries" or you're a dishonest leftist.
“Grew to?”
It was a fvcking list developed by the fvcking State Department of failed states and state sponsors of terrorism whose documents, ID, and background info we could not trust.
It started with North Korea and Cuba and Venezuela, and also Somalia, Iran, Syria, Sudan, etc
It did not include 8 of the 10 most populous Muslim Countries. If you wanted to exclude Muslims, you’d start with Indonesia and Pakistan, then India, Egypt, Turkey, etc.
Btw, it was the Fvckin OBAMA/KERRY State Dept that made the list Trump acted on
Wikipedia says this number is "often debated", whatever that means.
Let me guess. The refugees woke up one morning and said to each other, "I'd like to live in the United States."
Let me guess again. Some bureaucrat in Washington, DC realized one morning that someone had inadvertently solved some of the problems which created his job and kept him employed, so he panicked and thrashed around and found 100,000 refugees in terribly squalid camps and said to himself, said he, "I bet I could get some of them over here!" and lo! so it came to be, ensuring he remained employed for years to come. The refugees of course didn't know they wanted to come to the US, so they had to be reeducated. Then they needed support once they got here, because they didn't speak the language or know the customs. All fine work for bureaucrats.
That's "open boarders" immigration. Nothing voluntary about it on anybody's part except the bureaucrats saving their jobs.
Is the ban justified?
Is that a legal question, a political question, or a rhetorical question?
It's a stupid one.
It's not rhetorical. It's factual. Do citizens of Bahrain represent a sufficient threat to :US national security that a ban is justified?
Bhutan and Bahrain are different countries retard.
I:ndeed. I was writing a ppt involving Bahrain and had a brainfart
That isn't why they are being banned.
They are potentially being banned because they are illegally immigration in large percentages.
Also, it's not Bahrain.
Yup. My bad.
Why wouldn't it be?
Not exactly an intelligent response
Neither was your question.
For the record, nobody outside the US has rights that we must recognize.
The President has found that the entry of aliens from these regions would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.
You can feel free to disagree with his finding, think it is unjustified, etc.
8 USC 1182: Inadmissible aliens
(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.
Question: (from the headline)
Why Would Trump Want To Ban Bhutanese People?
Answer: (from the article)
Around 43 percent of Bhutanese visitors overstayed their visas in FY 2022, including 60 percent of tourists and business travelers, according to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's statistics.
An all in one article by the Reason staff.
It's becoming a theme that the proof against the author's premise resides in Reason's articles lately. After that you have to sift through a bunch of dishonest narrative framing and obtuse assumptions.
About that second part; are you speaking of the rest of the article or the comments?
The article. I read more of the comments than the articles. All too often there's something stupid in the first paragraph that makes me bail on the entire dishonest thing.
Bhutan also has no US embassy, so nobody there could get a visa, which requires you to appear in person(or at least used to). I could see how that might be a problem.
But what if I told you: Orange Man Bad?
The same thing as if you told me men can become women.
I turn around and walk away slowly shaking me head - - - - - - - - - -
Thank you for saving me the effort of copying and pasting. Though to be fair, I copied that sentence as I was reading it. Because it's THAT retarded.
If most of the visitors from a country can't follow visa law, I have very little faith that they will follow many others while they're here. So yeah, go ahead and tell them to fuck off. I think we'll get by without their precious Bhutanese business dollars.
But what would we do without Yak served from delicious food trucks also known as Wangchuck Wagons?
The percentages look higher because hardly anyone from Bhutan comes to USA. If two people show up, and one overstays, it is 50% overstay but far less people than say France which has 0.5% overstay rate which amounts to around 10K people.
Also how USA counts overstays is basically a broken system. Sometimes a person adjusts their status to some other category, travels to mexico via land or manages to exit without any official record which all gets counted towards "overstays". This is even a higher probability with smaller countries as they have less standardized names, passports and other documents that can be used to measure overstays.
So you're saying you don't understand what percentages are.
There are only a few hundred Bhutanese visitors a year. In _one_ year, the percentage overstaying their visas was high, but not in other years. That's random variation, not a problem with the Bhutanese. At any rate, the entire number of Bhutanese arriving in the 2020's is just a rounding error on the number of illegals from each of many other nations.
As for "Bhutanese refugees", they are numerous, but at present they aren't coming here, they are staying in Nepal and other nearby nations. Bhutan had a long problem with Nepalese attempting to immigrate in quantities vast enough to swamp the native population. They patrolled the border to try to keep the immigrants out, they sent some back, and granted citizenship to some. In the 1990's, the Bhutanese policy hardened and around 200,000 Nepalese who arrived after 1958 were expelled by the army. Some came here, some found new homes in other countries, but the largest group, estimated at 107,000, are staying in refugee camps in Nepal. They don't want to settle elsewhere, they want to go back to their land in Bhutan!
Visa overstay rate seems a quite reasonable reason to trigger a review. And a 43% overstay rate seems quite high. So if I'm reading this correctly, it's all a kerfluffle over a goverment bureaucrat failing to perform a standard deviation calculation on the overstay ratio.
This seems awfully thin sauce for a 'Trump is terrible' article.
Welcome to Reason; they need no sauce at all.
This seems awfully thin sauce for a 'Trump is terrible' article.
The point of the article is to revive animosity about America's awful "Muslim Ban" by talking about it as though it were Trump's specific policy or strictly Muslim, and to portray the Bhutanese people as some sort of victim class for having disparate outcomes.
The DEI sausage doesn't make itself.
They’re majority Buddhist, making it even more misleading.
I still remember how in the 86 amnesty agreement, part of the deal was adding visa exit checks in the future. Any day now.
Anonymous source of claimed list; Reason outrage!
Fuck off and die, TDS-addled steaming pile of lying shit.
"Roberts rejects Trump's call for impeaching judge who ruled against his deportation plans" - "...an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union said 'I think we're getting very close' to a constitutional crisis."
Lord, I HOPE so! Ever since Trump re-occupied the White House he has been doing everything he can to provoke one. In a nation that abandoned the Constitution a long time ago because it was limiting the expansion of Federal power to implement progressive socialism; where Congress gradually ceded its Constitutional authority and responsibilities to the Executive branch; and where the Judiciary stopped enforcing its plain language and clear intent to engage instead in experimental social legislation from the bench; it's 'way past time someone precipitated a Constitutional crisis!
https://www.aol.com/trump-calls-impeaching-federal-judge-145240267.html
“What we are seeing is an attempt by one branch of government to intimidate another branch from performing its constitutional duty. It is a direct threat to judicial independence,” Marin Levy, a Duke University School of Law professor who specializes in the federal courts, said"
Thanks to the Democrats for teaching Trump how to do that during his sabbatical!
Thanks to the Democrats for teaching Trump how to do that during his sabbatical!
Democrats did it first so whatever Trump does is ok.
Imagine your posts providing so little value you could be replaced by a bot. And not even one of those fancy new “AI” bots, but one from a decade ago.
There is a difference between saying, "it's ok" and realizing that the side that did it first has no moral high ground from which to criticize. What has happened historically is that the side in power does whatever it wants to do, claiming that it's justified because they are on the side of the angels. But when the other side takes power and does what THEY want to do, it's NOT justified because their intent is evil and they themselves are evil. In that setting there is no Constitutional principle involved, just a struggle for power to impose your view of right and wrong with a veneer of officialdom.
You're saying that Team Trump has no moral high ground from which to criticize Democrats, or does it only go one way?
Correct, Team Trump has no principled basis for criticizing Democrats and vice versa. For the Democrats: you do not get to violate the Constitution for decades when it suits your political purpose and then cite the Constitution when it starts to go the other way. We won't let you.
Nobody can criticize Trump for violating the Constitution, or even talk about it for that matter, because Democrats did it for decades. Since criticism of Trump reveals someone to be a Democrat, and Democrats aren't allowed to criticize or talk about Trump violating the Constitution, no one is allowed to criticize or talk about Trump violating the Constitution. That makes it ok for Trump to violate the Constitution because criticism is hypocritical. Go it.
He's not violating the Constitution you git.
“What we are seeing is an attempt by one branch of government to intimidate another branch from performing its constitutional duty.“
Well this part is true.
I remember Trump outside SCOTUS shouting at Gorsuch and Kavanaugh that they would reap the whirlwind if they didn’t rule like he wanted. Or was that Schumer?
Alito warned Roberts two weeks ago about the consequences of allowing inferior Courts to continue issuing these TROs and overstepping inherent article 2 powers.
Petti, stop being so retarded. You answered your question in your own article.
Around 43 percent of Bhutanese visitors overstayed their visas in FY 2022, including 60 percent of tourists and business travelers, according to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's statistics.
That’s a high percentage regardless of the raw numbers.
I had the misfortune to live above some of these precious, poor Bhutanese people. They were loud, all on food stamps (they kept leaving their trash all over, including receipts calling out their EBT balance of several hundred dollars), kept making babies and somehow all got nearly-new vehicles. As soon as they were kicked out of my apartment for being filthy, the cockroaches disappeared.
Multi-culturalism is evil. Creating a class of takers and charity-cases is evil.
Libertarians for increasing the welfare state!
So the headline is proven incorrect by the article but Reason blunders forward anyway. Geez.
It's a pattern at this point. Are the writers that bad at making their case or are they stuck sticking to this sort of narrative framing?
>Bhutan was listed because of its high U.S. visa overstay rate.
I guess we answered that question then.
An "official source" told The Bhutanese that Bhutan was listed because of its high U.S. visa overstay rate.
Answered your own question, doofus.
But the percentage was high because the number of Bhutanese visitors was so small to begin with.
A lot of people here seem to struggle with math. I was just explaining to some yahoo yesterday why sexual predation of minors is so much more prevalent among the rainbow people than it is the normals.
I'll get the crayon out for you too, Eric. See, when so many people among a small pool of them do something, that makes percentages higher.
Ooops, looks like 5th Grade Math Class is over. Time to go have some chocolate milk and a sloppy joe now, Matt.
I'll get the crayon out for you too, Eric. See, when so many people among a small pool of them do something, that makes percentages higher.
Look, he's trying to invent a race to be a victim of literally Hitler here, cut him some slack.
Because otherwise, it would just be an objective of "Any region whose people overstay Visas by X% get banned. No matter how small or poor." And Hitler and the systemically racist institutions that elected him can't do anything objectively because they're all white.
Man I sure do hate that Hitler guy. And my brain goes literally no further than that.
The proposed list of countries for the "Muslim ban" reboot has been leaked. It includes a small Buddhist kingdom in the Himalayas.
Wow, it's almost like this "Muslim ban" has nothing to do with Muslims.
The Trump administration has not offered any explanation of why Bhutan is in its crosshairs.
Well - now we know:
Scoffing at foreign economists, the former King Jigme Singye Wangchuck famously declared in 1972 that "gross national happiness is more important than gross domestic product."
They probably smile too much also.
Why Would Trump Want To Ban Bhutanese People?
Why did Nick Gillespie say Kyle Rittenhouse shouldn't have been in Kenosha? Why did the round table generally agree/support him?
The latent, barely-concealed animosity with which Reason strives to push Americans off and out of the social construct that is The United States of America undermines your ability to raise the issue outside our borders.
Trump needs to back off on gobbling Zionist cocks.
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts issues historic slapdown to Trump over deportation of 'monster' migrants
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14511847/supreme-court-chief-justice-slapdown-trump-migrant-deportation.html
Chief Justice John Roberts has issued a stunning rebuke of Donald Trump in an explosive row over the deportation of migrants and attacks on judges.
It came after Trump called for the impeachment of a judge who had blocked his bid to send people the administration said were members of a violent Venezuelan gang to El Salvador.
Trump attacked the federal lower court judge as a 'radical left lunatic' in a wild tirade on social media.
'For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision,' Roberts said in a curt statement issued by the Supreme Court. 'The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.'
Roberts just outed himself as a Marxist Democrat.
Trump is once again showing how much he is like Biden and Harris. Gobble gobble.
John Roberts personally placed James Boasberg on the FISA court that rubber-stamped illegal spy warrants against Donald Trump.
In case you’re wondering why he’s setting his own credibility on fire to defend Boasberg from impeachment investigations.
https://x.com/seanmdav/status/1902047749022859373
In case you don’t trust X:
Chief Judge Boasberg also served a seven-year term on the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court beginning in May 2014. Appointed by Chief Justice John Roberts, he was the Court's Presiding Judge from January 2020 to May 2021. He is currently the President of the Edward Bennett Williams Inn of Court and a member of the Yale University Council. He is also the past Chair of the Governing Board of St. Albans School.
https://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/content/chief-judge-james-e-boasberg
Jane Sullivan Roberts made $10m recruiting judges into D.C. between 2008-2014. How many of those lawyers now preside over a courtroom? How many are activist judges?
https://x.com/Red_Sword_666/status/1902051407898857648
Jane Roberts, the wife of Chief Justice John Roberts, made more than $10 million in commissions over an eight-year stretch where she matched top lawyers with elite law firms—including some that had cases before the Supreme Court—according to documents obtained by Insider, as concerns grow about justices possibly having unreported conflicts of interest.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicholasreimann/2023/04/28/chief-justice-john-roberts-wife-made-over-10-million-as-legal-consultant-report-says/
Nothing but graft all the way down.
The impeachment process is reserved to the legislative branch. Other than presiding over the Senate trial it does not involve the judiciary. Why is Roberts pissing on the constitutional separation of powers? Looks like a constitutional crisis to me.
Includes audio:
This is Judge Boasberg who provided over the Kevin Clinesmith case.
Clinesmith was the FBI lawyer who falsified evidence and submitted it to a secret FISA court to obtain unlawful spy, warrants against Carter page, to unlawfully spy on Donald Trump.
Boasberg was the presiding judge of the foreign intelligence surveillance court (FISC).
You only appreciate the corruption in hindsight. Here he is talking about how he was “randomly” assigned the case (if you believe that!).
And how he might have a conflict because Clinesmith’s crime could be offensive to him as presiding judge of the FISC.
He asks both parties that they want him to recuse himself, and they say no.
You realize that this was not transparency. It was part of the cover-up that resulted in Clinesmith getting a mere slap on the wrist
https://x.com/thevivafrei/status/1902066796837916810
Roberts burned his credibility with his inane Obamacare rulings.
He's turned into Souter since. The court will be stuck with the three libs + Roberts as a single bloc, two cons and three anything goes. ACB seems to have taken on Sandra O'Connors role. Trump will never get a positive ruling out of Roberts.
Why do we need to let them in? For the tourist dollars of 371 people? If Bhutan wants to be isolationist and reject other cultures, why do they need to come to the US in the first place? The place sounds like North Korea In The Mountains.
>But the percentage was high because the number of Bhutanese visitors was so small to begin with.
Why am I not surprised that 'reason' doesn't understand how percentages work?
So the solution is we behave like them?
I don’t mean to be rude but reinsert your buttplug and stop spewing all over reason.
"Why am I not surprised that 'reason' doesn't understand how percentages work?" Vesicant, apparently you don't understand how small numbers are affected by random variation.
But the percentage was high because the number of Bhutanese visitors was so small to begin with.
This is not how math works.
Really one of the stupidest things I've seen in print in a long time.
I think its obvious that Trump is afraid the monks there know how to summon dragons
I would think if you want to stay in Bhutan, you wouldn't care if there's an American ban.
>Muslim ban
Stopped reading.
Then checked the comments. They massively overstay visas, so they get scrutiny. Makes sense.
Fuck this dude, man. He's totally on the JS:DR train, like the vast majority of Reason writers these days.
I see many Nepali patients that had lived in Bhuthan. They were not just expelled, they were placed in camps where the women were raped, husbands beaten or killed and so on. The Bhutanese government was brutal.
Calling something a "muslim ban", then noting that something contradicts your premise, and then receiving a pretty good reason why it was on the list (the high percentage of overstays) pretty much wipes our your whole argument and the "muslim ban" premise.
If you want there to be open borders, fine, then just say you want open border. Don't use fake strawman arguments like this. It undercuts your credibility
Everybody Wangchuck tonight.
The Previous King of Bhutan Married Four Sisters at Once
King Jigme Singye Wangchuck had ten children in total with his four wives (two with the first, three with the second, three with the third, and two with the fourth). The third youngest sister is the mother of the current king. He apparently married them to prevent family rivalry and maintain harmony within the royal family as well as to fulfill a prophecy that said he would marry four sisters.
Wonder how inbred the royals in Bhutan are?
What a beautiful and unique culture whose diversity we should celebrate and encourage!
I declare March to be Gross Deviant Sexual Proclivities Month.
Shoot, no, June already has that.
Um, Why Are Some Live Matter So Disgusting and Weird Month?
FFS, that's already February. Incidentally, why aren't we teaching people how disgusting and weird these cultures are in February? The world needs to know.
OK, sorry, I don't know what we're supposed to do with this. August. Is August earmarked for anything? August is "have incest babies with your kin you sickos" month. DIVERSITY!
It's our strength!
Bhutan ... isn't this the country that made all tobacco products completely illegal, it failed miserably, and they doubled down on the ban? Sounds like a bunch of friggin' idiots to me.
It's a Buddhist theocracy with the trappings of a military dictatorship. Buddhism doesn't save them from all the problems with that arrangement.