 |
| Phub Dorji (PGCDM 2005) |
The path to development in Bhutan’s history has been a relatively short one. Since it emerged from its state of self-imposed isolation in 1970, it has made great strides in the enhancement of the quality of life of its people.
Today, Bhutan enjoys favorable macroeconomic conditions with a GDP growth rate of 7 – 9% p.a., largely fueled by the hydropower, transportation and construction sectors; per-capita income has increased to US$ 755 (the highest in South Asia); and, reserves stand at US$ 366.71 million, which is sufficient to cover 22 months of imports. 1
These exponential developments in the last 30 years have been defined within a coherent and balanced development path, which emphasizes that progress be based on the promotion of cultural preservation, good governance, socio-economic development and environmental conservation. This is a path outlined in His Majesty the King, Jigme Singye Wangchuck’s coronation speech as he ascended the Dragon Throne in 1974. He proclaimed that “the ultimate purpose of the government is to promote the happiness of the people. Gross National Happiness is more important than Gross National Product.”
What is Gross National Happiness then? Simply defined, GNH is Bhutan’s Buddhist development philosophy. It inculcates the Bhutanese values of tradition, culture and sustainable development, and the “middle path” toward modernization, in placing more importance on peoples’ overall happiness over such economic indicators as GDP or GNP.
But, these definitions are what GNH means to the literate and the scholars. The question really is – what does GNH mean to the common Bhutanese? It is important to recognize this corner of deliberations, for the ultimate target and purpose of GNH is the “people.” Saying thus, we arrive at the first dilemma in propagating the development policy of GNH – do ordinary Bhutanese comprehend such far-reaching development philosophies?
Although there are no assessed statistics on whether
the ordinary Bhutanese understand, or are happier under the guidance of
this policy, my recommendation (for now) is to focus on the expressions
that indicate a sense of satisfaction and well-being of the people. Tshering
Dorji (69), a yak-herder from Sangbay Gewog in Haa points out:
“When was the last time we had to leave our children, our harvest
and cattle and offer gungda wula (labor) to landlords? When was
the last time we had to pay forbidding harvests in taxes? And, when was
the last year we lived on “food credit,” not knowing whether
the next year would be good to us? It is only in these times that we neither
worry about mandatory work, food, and even injustices.” 2
This statement illustrates “a” success of the policies guided by GNH. However, the caveat remains that over 80% of Bhutan’s population still remain rural. The comprehension of such philosophical approaches may be beyond them. But, this does not mean that we cannot infer from the satisfaction shown by the people that this policy is on the right track. The Royal Government of Bhutan’s ardent drive to achieve 100% literacy is one of the solutions to overcoming difficulties in comprehending such development policies.
The second dilemma is GNH’s search of “happiness” for all. The “common good” versus “individual rights” is the issue here. As a society, often times the drive towards a common good contravenes the rights of the individuals and sometimes, the needs of an individual infringes on society’s common good. Therefore, how do we reconcile common good with individual rights? How do we progress as a people, while at the same time, involve every individual? Is democracy the answer? ““Yes” and “no.”” (Maanen, Gert Van. A Meeting of Two Cultures. p. 14) Yes, for we need to involve every person in decision-making processes that affect their lives. And no, since the right balance of decisions do not always arise from people’s involvement. 3
A part of Bhutan’s solution to this predicament in the last five years has been the decentralization of decision-making processes; devolution of powers (even the king’s); and the drafting of the country’s first ever Constitution. These changes have transpired in the view that society and government at large need “to construct instruments to balance” (A Meeting of Two Cultures. p. 15) the protection of human rights as well as the unimpeded progress for the common good. How far these changes will go in terms of achieving the goals of GNH remains to be seen.
A final dilemma in applying Gross National Happiness arises in marketing the concept to global (Western) audiences. In the international arena, GNH is consistently viewed as unquantifiable and even, utopian. However, in our context, it is the Bhutanese view that matters; and, the Bhutanese view this concept as holistic in nature. It is economics wrapped in spiritualism and “culturalism.”
It is often asked, “Why do you pursue such a holistic,
even utopian approach to development?” An article published in a
notable edition of The Economist, titled “Chasing the Dream,”
best sums up the answer and my recommendation to this inquiry:
Over the past half century, as developed economies have got much richer,
people do not seem to have become happier. Survey suggests that, on average,
people in America, Europe and Japan are no more pleased with their lot
than in the 1950s … the pursuit of material comfort does not always
lead to happiness.
Thus, our answer, “Why not?”
These are Bhutan’s answers to the dilemmas of GNH.
To date, Gross National Happiness remains a multidimensional pillar of
development, aimed at harmonizing the spiritual and material balance of
the Bhutanese people.
|
(Footnotes) |