Seeking happiness the Bhutanese way
The values, drawn from Buddhist teachings, from the experience and wisdom of our ancestors and from the very practical needs of a subsistence farming lifestyle, inculcated a reverence for an interdependent existence with all life forms, or all sentient beings.
Some examples of this are seen in the reluctance to hunt and fish (both of which are banned in Bhutan), the sometimes frustrating tendency to be less “productive” to avoid hurting or upsetting someone, and putting up with the cacophony of an unruly stray dog population. People have identified their own priorities in life.
The philosophical
Another perception level I see is the attempt to define, explain and measure GNH, along with an academic construction of the concept. As discussed earlier, the best accepted definition of happiness is the abiding sense of interrelatedness with all life forms and of contentment that lies within the self.
This is related to the happiness that Buddhists seek from the practice of meditation.
In one understanding of GNH as a development vision, a representative of the UN Development Programme (UNDP) described it as a much more advanced concept of the Human Development Index that the UNDP has been refining.
The responsibility
This takes me to the third perception level – GNH as a responsibility of the government.
As discussed, I think the definition of happiness as the abiding sense of contentment and GNH as a government responsibility make basic sense, although the translation of this into policy, legislation and prioritised activities is very much a work in progress.
In other words, we may agree on goals, values and responsibilities, but differ sharply on the best strategies to achieve those goals. And yet it is the recognition that GNH must be the basis of mainstream policy thinking that sets Bhutan apart from some countries that have expressed interest in GNH.
As we saw during the GNH conferences in Thailand, Brazil and Canada, some people doing good work among their communities – NGOs and civil society organisations – think they have found an identity in GNH.
In Bhutan, however, the four pillars and nine domains have given politicians and bureaucrats some idea of national priorities. This is useful because public servants do not intellectualise policy but make decisions that have an impact on all citizens.
International discourse
The fourth perception level is the “internationalisation” of the GNH discussion.
Bhutan has certainly not worked out the solutions to the world’s problems, but I think we have opened up an amazing conversation and we need to give this conversation coherence and direction.
The concept of GNH, even partially understood, excites and inspires people. After five international conferences on GNH and the April 2 meeting in New York, one criticism at home has been: “Stop preaching GNH overseas and make it work in Bhutan.”
This is a resounding example of the need for clarity in GNH thinking and understanding.
Here, I emphasise the point that we are not preaching to anyone – rather, we ourselves are learning out there.
There is a vast amount of research, analysis and experimentation done on GNH-related issues – sustainability, wellbeing, climate change and much more – by intellectuals including Nobel laureates, by universities and institutions and by civil society.
Bhutan must learn from them to deepen its own understanding of GNH.
International discourse can only benefit Bhutan because we ourselves do not have the capacity to undertake the necessary research and analysis required to implement GNH fully at home.
There is a growing understanding – fear even – that the human population, driven by the values of GDP, is literally consuming the Earth.
That is why GNH is a pun on GDP, gross national product. The loud message is that human development needs a higher goal – beyond GDP.