I shall attempt to serve as a faithful narrator of the story of Gross National Happiness (GNH), of the reasons that inspired His Majesty, the Fourth King, to conceive and pursue the common purpose that binds all human beings and its relevance today. Though some speak of GNH as a tool, a vision, an alternative development paradigm, for us it is a guiding philosophy for societal transformation.

It is appropriate that we ask the question: What is development? And for that matter, what is civilization? My own understanding is simple. Development means transformation of society, and civilization means refinement to enable orderly and joyful living in the security of a just and peaceful society within a sustainable environment. True development must thus be about transformation toward a greater refinement of the way we live as human beings, resulting in a particular state of being without causing harm to other species with whom we share this planet. This leads us to a second set of questions: Are we as individuals, communities, nations and a species becoming more civilized through the processes of development that we undertake? Are we becoming more refined culturally, emotionally, spiritually? And are we more secure, more at peace with ourselves and with each other, and does the thought of our individual or collective future give us reason for optimism, pride and confidence?

These were the questions that concerned HM, the Fourth King, at the very beginning of his 33-year reign at the ‘ripe old’ age of 17 as he searched for a meaningful, rational framework for the development of the country. He sought to understand what his people yearned for in life and how the monarchy and government must serve the people. In so doing, he probed the purpose of development from a governance point of view and of life itself. His search for an answer convinced him that both national and personal development must be guided by a clear collective vision and purpose.

 

A study of the prevailing development models led him to the realization that they lacked this essential clarity. It was obvious that these models were designed simply to promote material wealth in the pursuit of higher GDP growth. And this was true of all nations regardless of their varying political and cultural persuasions, even where there were differences in policy and legal instruments pertaining to the ownership of means and product distribution. He observed that capitalism, socialism or other models were all conditioned by the notion that economic growth and limitless prosperity at the national, collective or individual levels is not only desirable but must be pursued. The bottom line was, and is, that economic growth is measured against Simon Kuznetz’s indicator of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), developed immediately after the Great Depression of the 1930s.

Kuznetz himself explained the limitations of this indicator and cautioned that it was only a measure of the sum total of goods and services produced and traded in the market at a given time. Not heeding his call for caution, the concept of GDP has found blind and universal acceptance as an indicator for national progress and well-being and has guided human transformation in the last seven decades.

But what is the nature and cost of these transformations? This is the primary question that led to the rejection of the conventional economic models and compelled the king’s decision to conceive his own philosophy of development through GNH.

Now, more than ever, we see and experience the paradox of transformation that we have accomplished. Even as society has gained much through the amazing scientific, technological and market transformations in the last century, much has been lost, the consequences of which we already suffer, and which will become the legacy for future generations. Consumerism and a preoccupation with economic growth has meant one-sided development. It has ignored the need for the cultivation of the mind. Our material growth has come at the cost of impoverishing the mind and spirit. I remember listening to His Holiness, the Dalai Lama, in Europe, where he remarked that while man has conquered mountains, explored the ocean floor and space, ‘tamed’ much of nature, little is known about the human mind.

 

Having destroyed much of our environment and sources of sustenance through reckless consumption and waste, we continue to employ all our genius and labour to increase growth. All this to feed our insatiable consumerist appetite that is boosted by the manipulative mainstay of the media – advertising. We are, by all accounts, hurtling towards self-destruction. Yet, we carry on with our irresponsible and selfish behaviour to achieve higher GDP figures.

Gross Domestic Product mentored economics has dominated everything, but equally, the finer human pursuits too must yield to the rationale of market economics. Indeed, economics and the economy have become ends in themselves, and it is to these ends that we are enslaved. ‘Development’ has lost its purpose; the ‘economy’ has no goal. Therein lies the irony. We are losing our humanness to become robots programmed to be ‘productive’ through endless labour so as to earn more, to consume more and more, without fundamental satisfaction. Even our education system is structured like line factories that churn out robots with normative and cognitive orientation to support and sustain this way of life. Mopping-up the growing waste and addressing problems of pollution and climate change are issues we do not appear to be concerned with.

 

We have trusted, unleashed and liberalized the market and its forces, which we now know are not guided by any ‘unseen hand’ but by evil and avaricious geniuses. We cannot admit we are wrong, for as Macbeth would have us say, we are steeped in the market so deep, beyond cast and creed, that it would be too tedious to change. The market has become omnipotent and market fundamentalism is the faith of the day. Those placed in the highest positions of power do not relent. We remain fettered to our fixation with ‘growth’. That is why the kind of solutions we proposed to the global financial crisis are where they are – more of the same that caused the crisis in the first place.

But where will mindless growth take us? How long can growth that is largely of the physical kind and must rely on a planet with limited natural resources, be sustained. Transformation through growth has become the end, not the means to an end. This, perhaps, has to do with our never really having asked the question: Transformation into what; development to what end? While on the subject of growth, it will do good to remind ourselves that growth by its very definition, for any form of living organism, must lead to maturation. And what follows maturation is decay. There is another form of mindless growth that is known as cancer, which grows by consuming the host to perish with it. Therefore, we need to ask what stage of the maturation has human society reached and how long it can survive before its death and decay? Is there an option? Must we premise human well-being on economic growth?

 

The transformation we have undergone thus far provides a long list of worrying signs of which I shall site only a few. The quest for unlimited growth through the ruthless exploitation of natural resources is not only causing their rapid depletion, it is setting the stage for dangerous conflicts in a world with far too many countries and possibly, unknown entities, that possess nuclear capability. Furthermore, the collapse of biodiversity, climate destabilization and the imminent disappearance of some of the island states and coastal areas, is not a comforting thought. These realities lie at the root of the increasing frequency and devastation with which natural calamities are exacerbating the plight of the poor and vulnerable in particular. Scientists now confirm that earthquakes and tsunamis can be triggered by changes in stress levels on the earth’s crust and ocean floor caused by loss of snow and ice cover in the mountains and a resultant rise in ocean levels.

As for mountain countries such as Bhutan, the impact of climate change is immediate and life threatening. These demand mitigation and adaptation efforts that we can hardly afford. That such callous living has led to the highest level of aggregate wealth in the world ever created by man is no compensation, for very little, in fact, constitutes real wealth. This was made ever so clear by the current recession, the recent Asian financial crisis and the Great Depression when so-called wealth in stocks, savings, luxury homes and even jobs disappeared overnight. Perhaps, that is why there is no relationship between happiness and material wealth after basic needs are met.

The moral and ethical basis of our so-called prosperity is also questionable on the grounds that absolute numbers of people suffering from poverty and vulnerability of all kinds are at a historic peak. The struggle for survival in the countries of the South is all the more challenged by an explosion of the global population from two billion at the end of the 19th century to 6.7 billion today. Of this, 800 million are malnourished, and by 2025, eight billion will crowd this small planet with an additional billion squeezing in by 2050. Roughly 64% of global mortalities are from non-communicable diseases. Some 450 million people – 12% of world population – suffer from mental health problems of one kind or another. Our society is plagued with the spiralling problems of alcoholism, dependence on drugs, relational failures, violent crime, clinical depression and suicides.

 

Then there is the problem of growing urbanization. From 30% in 1950, the world urban population has increased to 50% now. In the next 40 years or sooner 70% of the global population will live in cities. The deep carbon footprint of dense urban populations is undeniable, though hardly taken into account in policy-making. Rural-urban migration usually translates as leaving one’s roots, family, friends and neighbours. It means severance from vital community life of interdependence, communion with nature and a less stressful yet satisfying life.

 

For too many, urban life has come to mean a life of loneliness amid bustling crowds. The social safety net offered by family and neighbours back on the farm is traded for state support, which in many rich countries is already overburdened and collapsing. The consequence is in the lower levels of happiness that urbanization seems to cause. At least that is the early evidence from GNH surveys in our country. And it ought to be true. Happiness, after all, is about joyful birth and parenting, meaningful and satisfying labour, aging with contentment amid security, and dying in dignified serenity among family and friends. These serve as harsh reminders that the GDP-led market economy and our way of life is unsustainable, inequitable and are the cause of rising unhappiness.

GNH offers an alternative. Acknowledging happiness as the common purpose of human beings, GNH suggests that progress should be understood as referring to the degree of gains we make in improving happiness levels over a period of time. It recognizes the needs of the human individual as going beyond the requirements of the body alone and calls for equal attention to the needs of the mind. It is based on the belief that the realization of happiness is conditioned by our ability to achieve a judicious balance between material and spiritual needs and pursuits.

The adoption of GNH as our development philosophy is based on the conviction that since happiness is the single-most important aspiration of every citizen, the primary role of the state must be to create conditions that will enable individuals to transform themselves and society into the blissful state of happiness. To this end, our governments, over the years, have dedicated themselves to creating conditions that would enable the citizens to pursue happiness. Thus, GNH is a development paradigm with a clear purpose and a set of strategies that will enhance and sustain human civilization.

GNH has guided our development process for almost four decades now since the early 1970s. Today, Bhutan is well on the way to becoming self-reliant while the gap between the rich and poor is, in no way, hopelessly wide. Our environment is healthy and resilient with more than 72% of forest cover and close to 50% of its territory declared as protected area. Cultural heritage and traditions founded on basic human values continue to guide our thinking and everyday life. Our commitment to good governance has given us a kind of democracy that has truly empowered the voter as opposed to the mere external trappings of democracy.

 

We have thus far, managed to balance modernity with tradition, the material with spiritual, and growth with sustainability. This is largely attributable to the internalized GNH values in the people themselves. However, we can no longer take for granted that good intuitive traits will continue to guide national policy and decision-making. Globalization and our integration into the world, compelled by communication and information technologies and their easy access, will cause perceptions and values to change among our people. There is fear that such internalized values may not be able to withstand the corrosive forces of consumerism. Signs to this effect are already beginning to appear.

Based on these considerations, the Royal Government has established a GNH indicator to guide development. In undertaking this task by the Centre for Bhutan Studies, we have had the benefit of support and contributions from a significant number of academics and practitioners around the world. The indicator comprises a four-pronged strategy known as the four pillars of GNH that facilitate the pursuit and attainment of positive transformation within nine domains, which together form the basis for the blissful state of happiness.

 

The four pillars are: (i) sustainable and equitable socio-economic development; (ii) conservation of our fragile mountain ecology; (iii) preservation and promotion of culture; and (iv) good governance. The nine domains are: Living standard: This covers the basic economic status of the country’s citizens. By gathering information on disposable income, levels of material wealth experienced by different sectors of the population will be determined. The domain will also review levels of poverty and income inequalities within the country. Economic security will be ascertained by collecting data on land ownership, food security and employment.

Health status: This domain comprises the physical health status of the population. In addition to mortality and morbidity rates, this domain incorporates individually reported health status and health risk behaviour. The status indicator of percentage reporting good or excellent health, although subjective, has been found to be a good predictor of disease incidence and mortality. Other status indicators include percentage reporting healthy levels of physical activity and percentage reporting healthy weight etcetera.

Educational standard and relevance: A number of factors are the subject of enquiry in this domain. These include participation, skills, and educational support, among others. The domain covers informal, non-formal, and monastic education and assesses the national, community, and family resources that influence education in Bhutan. Other status indicators in this domain are percentage reporting strong skills and knowledge in at least five important areas and percentage reporting high level of family, civic, and cultural knowledge.

Ecological diversity and resilience: By looking at the state of resources, the pressures on ecosystems, and different management responses, this domain will describe domestic supply and demand and their consequences for Bhutan’s ecosystems. In terms of supply, the survey will review the status of land, water, forest, air, and biodiversity. In terms of consumption, the domain will look at such factors as production, waste, transportation, energy use, and the ecological footprint.

 

As Bhutan orients its natural resource use towards the sustainable paradigm, status indicators such as the percentage reporting sustainable natural resource practices in their communities will measure the prevalence of sustainable resource use at the local level, and assist in registering the effectiveness of renewable resource use policies. The impact of global warming and its threats are also being measured.

Cultural diversity and resilience: The domain will assess the diversity and strength of cultural traditions in Bhutan. It will take into account the nature and number of cultural facilities, language use patterns and diversity, as well as participation in community based religious activities. The survey will also review people’s responses to core values, local customs and traditions, and changing values. Thus, status indicators such as percentage reporting good or excellent knowledge in a certain number of traditions will reflect the degree to which members practice and maintain traditional skills and forms of knowledge.

Community vitality: The domain of community vitality focuses on the strengths and weaknesses of relationships and interaction within communities. Status indicators, such as percentage reporting a high sense of trust in people, percentage reporting on the high level of vitality in the community, the percentage reporting of voluntary activities, and the percentage reporting of feelings of safety within one’s own home and community, will enable policy-makers to track the changes in community vitality. This should help us devise appropriate and timely strategies to prevent the disintegration of community life and strengthen social capital. In this regard, I may add, that we consider the extended family network vitally important social capital, society’s most resilient and sustainable form of economic, social and emotional safety net.

Time use: This will analyze the manner of time spent within a 24 hour period, as well as activities that fall under longer periods. The data will be collected in order to determine how the population spends its social, cultural, economic, and human capital. From the data, the percentage of time accorded to work, travel, food preparation and household chores, will be calculated. Some of the status indicators available from this domain will be percentage reporting of a satisfactory pace of life, time spent on community activities, and time spent on social and family activities. One important function of time use is recognizing the value of leisure time.

Psychological well-being: This domain encompasses contentment, satisfaction with various aspects of life, and the health of the mind. Since collective happiness is the main goal under a GNH society, psychological well-being is of primary importance to gauge the success of the state in providing appropriate policies and services. As psychological well-being of the population is an outcome of life circumstances related to societal conditions, it is also an indicator of well-being for the community and society as a whole. A holistic approach to development calls for an inclusion of people’s perceptions and state of mental well-being. A self-reported mean happiness score, based on a 10 point scale for international comparison, is one of the primary means of evaluating the sense of psychological well-being of citizens.

Governance quality: This domain evaluates five sub-domains: participation; effectiveness of government; just and equal law; freedom and quality of media; and transparency, accountability, honesty and integrity. An example of relevant status indicators would be percentage reporting participation in local government meetings, percentage reporting good and excellent performance of various levels of government, and percentage reporting of trust in the media.

 

You may wish to note that the last national population census conducted five years ago reported the following levels of happiness among the Bhutanese people: not very happy 3%; happy 52%; and very happy 45%.

It is being contended that the GNH index has a strong dependence on subjective data and that the nature of happiness itself, cannot be allowed to guide the governance of any society. I fear that such distrust of subjective data can only lead to negligence of happiness in governance and development planning. Disregarding subjective information will free governments, as it has thus far, from what must constitute their primary obligation of enabling the pursuit of happiness by citizens. Variability of happiness among people is critical in evaluating various aspects of governance. Where deep unhappiness exists, surely something is wrong and we cannot afford to wait for objective data which by itself cannot tell us the reality that is ultimately subjective.

 

A change from the GDP-led market centric macroeconomic model to the GNH paradigm calls for a fundamental departure from the way we are used to living our lives. It must arise from acknowledging mankind’s astonishing material achievements and accepting that more will not further human advancement or result in greater happiness. It requires breaking out of the mould of consumerism to pursue not so much the unknown but the less trodden path. The biggest challenge however, is to redefine wealth and prosperity and make these the objects of common desire and purpose.

We need to consider wealth as not only accumulation of material possessions but as accumulation of what matters more to our well-being. These should include, for instance, the circle of friends and the integrity of the extended family network, the number of people that one can count on as true friends who will not only be there to share joyous moments but be willing to provide material as well as emotional support in times of need. Wealth must be understood as being of the kind that will refine human life within a sustainable environment; render the future more predictable and secure; and strengthen relationships within community and family. It must be the cause for sustained happiness. This is the vision of common purpose that GNH as a transformational tool is designed to achieve.

 

* Based on a presentation made at Mountain Echoes, a literary festival, Thimhpu, May 2010.