This tiny nation, among the least populated in the world (about 700,000
inhabitants) caught between two of the most populated countries in the world
(India and China) totally isolated, whom the penultimate monarch has, the
first one, in the late seventies, defined and implemented the concept of
Gross National Happiness (GNH), is it happier than the others?
This strange country (a constitutional monarchy, whose former king withdrew
voluntarily not long ago at less than 50 years old to leave the throne to
his 27-year-old son) is apparently very backward: a matriarchal system,
where polygyny and polyandry are legal, very few cars, no brands in stores,
only one television channel, and only since 1999, the mobile phone since
2003 and archery as national leisure.
In addition, society is fully mobilized to preserve its values: a single
religion, Mahayana Buddhism, present in every moment of everyday life, more
than 10,000 monks paid by the state but excluded from any political decision
(with a leader appointed by the king and by protocol his equal);
architecture and very rigorous rules of urbanization protecting perfectly a
craft industry of religious art; almost everybody wearing almost all the
time the national costume and speaking a language close to ancient
Tibetan, among 19 other local languages.
And yet, this country is successful, (thanks in particular to significant
hydroelectric resources, with Indian companies being at the same time the
first producers and the first consumers) with a high standard of living for
the region; parliamentary democracy is vigilant, and health and education
are free for life, even with higher education, being very selective.
Moreover, it measures its well being with indices of GNH which has nothing
to do with their UN reduction under the name of Human Development Index:
instead of an illusory unique index, the Bhutanese know that happiness is
multidimensional. They distinguish nine dimensions: psychological
well-being, health, education, use of time, cultural diversity, governance,
vitality of democratic life, ecological diversity and standard of living.
For example, 60% of the country must remain as forests, and the fight
against corruption is very severe. Moreover, changes in these indices are
the titles in some newspapers in the country, often very critical of the
power in place.
But all is far from perfect: first, several of these indices are measured by
surveys, with the bias that this implies. Secondly and more seriously, the
country 90% rural not so long ago, is becoming urbanized at high speed,
which causes inflation, unemployment and inequality.
We must follow closely the evolution of this country. If it manages,
lucidly, to preserve its identity without renouncing its material wealth
growth, then it will be necessary to be inspired by its way of thinking and
discuss politically its development. If it fails, then, not only we will
have lost one of the most beautiful civilizations in human history, but
still it will be (as in the image of the suffocation of the bird in the
mine), a very bad sign. Yet again, this depends only on us.