TO consider whether Gross National Happiness (GNH) can prove a valuable tool for governance in a changing world, it is imperative to pierce through the generality which tends to overcome any attempt at a clear definition, and arrive with some degree of precision at an understanding of the concept. This exercise becomes especially important as the association of ‘happiness’, individual or collective, with state intervention or control, tends to evoke grave suspicion in those committed to a liberal, democratic outlook, with constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights as a bulwark against interference by the state with individual liberty.

Effective governance invariably requires some means of enforcement. GNH as a tool of governance implies that it must equally be one of the objectives of governance, which in turn suggests a means of enforcement, leading to GNH being enforced by the state. Such a train of thought arriving at the state enforcing happiness invites immediate and obvious misgivings about the whole idea. Should the state really be venturing into an arena which is arguably the proper preserve of individual aspiration? Ought not the role of the state be limited to ensuring the liberty and opportunity necessary for individuals to strive towards happiness, if they so choose, and howsoever they choose to define it? Is there not a danger that the language of collective happiness will become a means of stifling individual liberty and a convenient justification for despotic behaviour by the state? Is ‘happiness’ in fact a private, personal, individual value rather than a universal, collective one, which does not therefore lend itself to state policy with notions of collective good? Is there not considerable collective value in unhappiness, which often leads to profound creative expression?

After all, in the words of John Stuart Mill, it is perhaps better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied? While these questions and concerns abound in any serious discussion on GNH and are certainly germane, I nevertheless feel them to be occasioned by a lack of basic understanding of GNH and, therefore, somewhat misguided and misplaced. It will be my attempt to shed greater light on the concept in an effort to alleviate some of these worries.

 

The Indian Constitution, in Part IV, Articles 36 to 51, contains ‘Directive Principles of State Policy’. Article 37 thereof stipulates that while these provisions are not enforceable by any court, the principles contained therein are nevertheless fundamental in the governance of the country and it is the duty of the state to apply the principles in making laws. So while the principles are a guiding factor, they lack teeth inasmuch they are not enforceable by any court. As such, they become an aid while interpreting other parts of the Constitution, particularly fundamental rights, but are unenforceable directly.

 

The Constitution of the Kingdom of Bhutan, in Article 9, contains ‘Principles of State Policy’ which section 1 thereof provides that the state shall endeavour to ensure a good quality of life for the people of Bhutan in a progressive and prosperous country committed to peace and amity in the world. However, unlike with the Indian Constitution, these principles do not come with any specific qualification as to their lack of enforceability through the judicial system. In terms of Article 9, section 2, ‘The State shall strive to promote those conditions that will enable the pursuit of Gross National Happiness.’ So, constitutionally speaking, GNH is neither contemplated as a direct objective of state policy, nor is there a mandate on the state to enforce GNH. Rather, the state is to ‘endeavour’ to foster conditions which enable the pursuit of GNH. As far as the Constitution of Bhutan is concerned, GNH is hardly a state prescription or a clearly enforceable mandate. Rather, it is couched in innocuous language which presents it more as a distant, uncertain goal. Needless to add, the Constitution fails to provide a definition of Gross National Happiness.

This brings us once again to the sine qua non for any useful discussion on GNH, namely, its definition. Most of my understanding of the concept of GNH is based on the work of the Centre for Bhutan Studies, a leading think tank of Bhutan. Happiness is said to be a subjectively felt public good. As such, it is not a prescription imposed on an individual, but is also not wedded to individual proclivities. The subjective is thus not ignored in favour of the objective, but equally, the objective is neither sacrificed at the altar of the subjective. Individual happiness is seen as existing within a frame of reference rather than as a simple product of different levels of absolute individual consumption. In other words, maximization of consumption levels is not viewed as an effective means to achieving happiness.

The factors identified as conduits to GNH are: good governance, standard of living, ecology, psychological well-being, community vitality, health, education, cultural diversity and time use, all of which are interdependent. Each of these factors, of course, captures various enabling facets of happiness. Psychological well-being includes emotional balance, mental health, spirituality and quality of life. Community vitality recognizes the importance of the neighbourhood, safety and relationships, including the availability of social support structures, a sense of belonging, community trust and reciprocity.

 

Cultural diversity encompasses both cultural practices and cultural values, including language, cultural events, cultural knowledge, personal values and societal values. Time-use comprises the division between work, sleep and other activities. Good governance encapsulates government performance, rights and institutional trust. Ecology is shaped by systemic and individual impact. Living standards include measures of income, security and housing. Health includes personal health and the health system. Similarly, education comprises both personal education, such as literacy, academic achievement etc. and the education system.

Integral to the formulation of happiness as a public good that is subjectively felt is the perception of the factors enumerated above. So, for instance, the perception of good governance is fundamental to its measure and assessment. One of the failings of traditional indices of advancement, progress and well-being of a society, e.g. GDP, most of which tend to be economic indicators, arguably the easiest to measure, are premised on a subjective output from the objective data. So, for instance, it is presumed that an increase in economic growth at the national level will ultimately yield greater individual economic prosperity, which in turn will result in an improved quality of life, which will be perceived as such by individuals. Policies are unquestioningly framed around these indicators.

 

But then, criticism of such traditional indicators and their faulty presumptions and limited measurement is nothing new. GNH though moves a step beyond the critique in seeking to introduce subjectivity into the objective assessment and to measure the perception in order to discover the reality. What good is good governance if people do not view it as such? The factors discussed above are rather widely worded and broadly framed. No doubt, in order to translate ultimately into a policy tool, GNH must offer an effective measurement technique with which to evaluate the effect and impact of policy in achieving the goals of GNH. A method of measurement based on various indices with quantitative results has been attempted, but I do not propose to examine that aspect here. The means of measurement of GNH and its credibility are of course crucial considerations to evaluate GNH as a policy tool. But what I wish to tackle for the present is the conceptual framework within which GNH operates.

Traditional critiques of economic indicators point to examples such as drying one’s clothes in a dryer, which gives an economic fillip, registering positively on an economic indicator, as compared to drying one’s clothes in the sun, which is not measurable as economic activity in terms of consumption of electricity etc. If a positive economic indicator is seen as a measure of preferred activity, then the former act of drying one’s clothes in a machine, with environmentally damaging consequences, is to be preferred to a more environmentally friendly activity.

 

Similarly, unsafe roads, leading to a greater number of accidents, leading to greater incidents of hospitalization, insurance coverage, repair costs etc. would comprise a flurry of ‘positive’ economic activity, whereas safer roads, resulting in fewer accidents, a reduced requirement of health care, insurance coverage, cost of repair etc. would register negatively on an economic indicator. Surely, the latter scenario is the preferred one, whereas economic indicators would draw us towards the former. Policies of active environmental protection and preservation, and concepts such as sustainable development, have emerged out of the degradation caused by years of unchecked economic activity propelled by such economic indicators. And yet, these indicators continue to be the primary policy tools and dominate discourse.

To take India as an example, high levels of economic growth are touted routinely with pride as indicators of the society hurtling towards development and prosperity, as compared to many other parts of the world which are seen to be slowing down. Rarely in the public discourse in India is opposition to the prevailing notions of development taken seriously. GNH to my mind offers a corrective lens to this myopic vision.

The GNH factors adverted to above, especially good governance, standard of living, ecology, health, education and cultural diversity, are hardly unusual as factors relevant to policy making. Psychological well-being, community vitality, and time use perhaps move beyond the common pale. So what does GNH really bring to the table that is not already there? To appreciate the potential contribution of GNH as a policy tool, one must consider where the traditional, western models of development and policy making began to go wrong.

It is evident that all societies, be it the global community, nation-states, economic blocs etc., are structured around a particular value system which acts as an explicit and implicit social contract and becomes the foundation for structuring society, through laws and government. Of course, there is constant change, evolution, friction and upheaval. But invariably, any claim at ordered society carries with it a prescription for a particular way of life propounded as being the right way. Wherever one may fall on the political spectrum, the debate eventually boils down to competing claims towards the betterment and improvement of society.

 

A particular value system, political structure, economic framework are in any objective discussion advocated for their ability to improve the human lot. Equally, social, economic and political frameworks invite criticism when they fail to advance the cause for which they were originally canvassed, namely, the betterment of society. So to regard GNH with suspicion merely because it advocates a particular overarching value or appears to be prescriptive, is to ignore the basic nature of social, economic and political structures, which are invariably prescriptive.

But arguably, the suspicion stems more from a liberal, democratic outlook focused on enabling and empowering individuals to choose their way of life rather than presenting them with state prescriptions for a particular way of life. To believe that such an approach is devoid of moral, social, political and economic prescription is to be simplistic. Moreover, even this approach recognizes the need for regulation and state intervention to correct inequities and ensure that the freedom to choose does not descend into inequality, injustice and chaos, unravelling the fabric of ordered society.

In any event, whether it be the constitutional foundation for GNH in Bhutan or the factors identified for its assessment, enhancement of the human condition, including the ability to make informed, genuine choices is certainly at the heart of GNH. To suggest that improved levels of education, health, good governance and a well balanced ecology would enhance GNH and ought therefore to be actively encouraged, hardly warrants mistrust as a fetter on individual choice and freedom. Where the traditional policy models have lost their way is in forgetting that there is an ultimate, overarching objective behind all policy making, namely, the betterment of society, whatever that vision might be, ‘happiness’ if you will. Instead, what were always intended to be means to a certain end, have taken over as ends in themselves and wandered far from the original path.

 

Whether it be health care, education, economic growth, a democratic political structure and so on, these were never intended to be ends in themselves, but means to the improvement and betterment of society. But over time, these have become the goalposts and are not therefore subjected to evaluation or assessment based on some external objective. So policies of health care, for instance, tend to focus far more on treatment rather than prevention. A GNH approach would instead start by drawing attention to the objective behind health care, namely, to enhance ‘happiness’. Surely, an individual would be happier with a scenario where disease is prevented rather than treated.

 

Similarly, if an education system leads to great stress, boredom, disinterest and subjective dissatisfaction, then it needs reminding of the purpose for which the system was created, surely not to reduce ‘happiness’. Economic growth is the most stark example of the means corrupting the end. And yet, the path is often blindly followed as a religious edict. This is not to suggest of course that health care, education and economic policies are not constantly subjected to analysis and criticism for failing to improve conditions of health, education and standards of living in an equitable manner. What the GNH framework offers though is a chance at addressing one of the root causes of policy failure in the traditional development model, namely, the diversion from the ultimate objective behind all policy, the improvement and betterment of society, ‘happiness’. Instead, policy means have become policy ends and thus lost sight entirely of their purpose.

A further lack of cohesion and policy confusion results from education, health, economic growth etc. having become competing ends instead of means to a common end. GNH not only reminds us of the goalpost lying beyond such means, but offers an approach that brings together such means to serve a common purpose. GNH thus offers a corrective course and promises an evaluative policy tool which poses the right questions and hopefully therefore invites the right answers. A seemingly simple idea, but then most good ones are.