The monks of South Asia have been chanting on behalf of the happiness and well-being of all creatures for 2,500 years. Now, the spirit of those mantras has marched out of the monastery and into the streets, even into the halls of the United Nations.
Calling for nothing less than nonviolent resistance against the failed global economic system, the tiny Himalayan nation of Bhutan, sandwiched between India and China, took to the world stage last month by leading a “High Level Meeting on Happiness and Well-Being.” Its recommendation: Replace the Bretton Woods economic paradigm, imposed on the world by the United States in the wake of World War II, with an entirely new and inherently more just system.
The prime minister of Bhutan, Jigme Thinley, called on the people of the world to demand a change. Scholars, Nobel laureates, political actors, U.N. officials and staff, and spiritual and civil society leaders, many from the Global South, affirmed that the current system serves neither the human community nor other creatures on the planet.
“The GDP-led development model,” Thinley told the gathering, “compels boundless growth on a planet with limited resources.” Moreover, “it no longer makes economic sense. It is the cause of our irresponsible, immoral and self-destructive actions.” Finally, the prime minister concluded, “The purpose of development must be to create enabling conditions through public policy for the pursuit of the ultimate goal of happiness by all citizens.”
Most of the 600 in attendance shared Bhutan’s vision. Indian activist Vandana Shiva emphasized the importance of such a basic human need as food, the source of profit for a few and misery for many. As she has noted before, “The poor are not those who have been ‘left behind’; they are the ones who have been robbed.” The current paradigm creates a flow of financial, social, human and natural capital to the United States and other rich nations at the expense of everyone else.
Although Bhutan has faced criticism in the past for its treatment of Nepalese immigrants and the jailing of smokers, it has made considerable progress in recent years by establishing a new democracy and implementing creative efforts to measure its citizens’ well-being and happiness. The concept of Gross National Happiness was coined by the former King Jigme Singye Wangchuck, who abdicated in 2006 and set the democratization process in motion. To its credit, Bhutan is setting high standards for itself that may be difficult to reach, but the country is not alone in this endeavor.
Costa Rica’s President Laura Chinchilla gave the keynote address, sharing the experience of her country, noting, “In 1948 we decided to consolidate the best of our civic values, and abolished the army. We chose to solve our disputes through the ballots, not the bullets; we decided to invest in schools and teachers, not garrisons and soldiers.” Rather than decreasing the national security, “This uninterrupted path turned Costa Rica into the most stable and longest living democracy in Latin America.”
Interfaith spiritual leaders at the meeting, including the moderator of the Church of Canada and the Buddhist supreme patriarch of Thailand, as well as representatives from major religious traditions, issued their own statement calling for a new economic paradigm “based upon compassion, altruism, balance, and peace, dedicated to the well-being, happiness, dignity and sacredness of all forms of life.”
Meanwhile, economists John Helliwell, Richard Layard and Jeffrey Sachs distributed copies of the World Happiness Report. They argue, “We live in an age of stark contradictions. The world enjoys technologies of unimaginable sophistication; yet has at least one billion people without enough to eat each day.”
The official statement that came out of the meeting calls for a new paradigm with four pillars: ecological sustainability, happiness and well-being for all, fair distribution, and efficient use of resources. An unexpected 200 participants remained at the U.N. for two additional days to clarify what the new paradigm would look like, to propose new solutions, and to strategize how to mobilize a global movement in civil society to resist the current one and implement the change. Relevant civil society, educational, spiritual and activist organizations worldwide are being informed about the process, with an eye toward a 2014 convention that would replace Bretton Woods.
Widespread civil resistance movements would be a vital component in bringing about a shift toward so radically different a paradigm as this. Yet the meeting suggests that insufficient use has been made of the United Nations as a venue by change activists. Despite the U.N.’s obvious shortcomings — for instance, OWS recently protested the influence of corporations on environmental proceedings — it is nonetheless an infrastructure where every nation has a voice, at least in theory. Paradoxically, Global South elites who are also victims of the current economic paradigm provide an entrée into the system for grassroots activists, and this meeting demonstrates that the U.N. can offer a venue for radical critique. But the U.N. will only work on behalf of the people if the people insist that it does and begin to explore the possibilities that it might offer as a space for challenging injustice at a global level.
Dutch Rabbi Awraham Soetendorp, a long-time veteran of international meetings, observed that this one had “a different spirit” and that the time was ripe for unprecedented change. His call for a 0.01 percent donation of everyone’s income, especially from the rich nations, was received with enthusiasm by the civil society working group, which is creating a World Happiness Bank (a tentative name) that would promote and model the new economic paradigm.
This change will not happen, of course, without the mobilization of a nonviolent resistance movement. That’s where we come in; we have a new opportunity to act against a system that is robbing humanity and its fellow creatures through what the meeting’s statement calls the “private capture of the common wealth.” And we can do so by following the lead of the marginalized.
A new book explores how Miss Major has persevered over six inspiring decades on the frontlines of the queer and trans liberation movement.
Humor in Native culture has never been simply about entertainment. Comedy is also used to fight cultural invisibility and structural oppression.
Waging Nonviolence is hiring a writer to interview leading movement figures and analysts and produce one Q&A-style article per week. The writer will work with our small editorial team to identify the interview subject each week. For the most part, we’ll be looking to hear from activists, organizers and scholars who can shed light on… More
THIS may seem crackpot to some, but a little bit of thought reveals an honest attempt to address major issues in a spiritual and realistic way. It does imply a redistribution of global resources, but this doesn’t necessarily mean taking from the rich and giving to the poor. It should make people all around the world, the vast majority of whom claim to follow some sort of religion and/or are spiritual reassess just how much they need to satisfy their needs and be happy, and what they can do without. If people in wealthy nations and the wealthy in the developing world are honest they will decrease consumption of their wants, concentrate on their needs and find the means and motivation to change both their societies and over time their nation’s priorities for the benefit for all. The more who actually practice the tenants of their faith, the more people around the world will have the opportunity to live in peace and have access to adequate food, health care, education and their human rights will be protected. A pipe dream? Not if people around the world are as religious and spiritual as they claim to be. FOR those of you who wonder if I practice what I preach, I can tell you I give about 10% of my net income to organizations to feed, house and provide health care and educational assistance to the needy as well as to human rights and environmental organizations. I do my best to conserve water and energy in my apartment and recycle most of my trash. I e mail and call my elected officials on issues and policy and I have voted in every election since I could vote (in 1976). And I pray for our government and for peace.
My concern would actually be, if I get your point right, the reverse. You’re concerned that this plan might involve taking from the rich and giving to the poor, and I’m concerned that it wouldn’t involve enough of that. Without knowing a great deal about what “happiness and well-being” mean in this case, I detect a whiff of the “happy peasant” myth that has long justified unhappy aristocrats mercilessly robbing their underlings. I fear that neither happiness nor prayer nor votes nor good intentions can compete with the massive power imbalance that occurs when some people are vastly more wealthy than others, and thereby have the capacity to inflict violence of various kinds when they perceive their own happiness under threat. I don’t think one needs to become a doctrinaire dialectical materialist to recognize that there is a lot of truth in just looking plainly and directly at who has access to what wealth and what means of production.
I’m afraid, Nathan, that you did not get my point right – perhaps I did not make it clearly.
If you take a look at links to the documents for the meeting, you’ll see that the idea being pursued here involves not just happy peasants praying for happiness, but a global economic system that promotes fair distribution and sustainability. The only way to have that is to address the massive power imbalance you speak of – and the only way to do that, from my point of view, is with a massive uprising of those who do not have access to wealth and the means of production, but on whom the wealthy depend to make the system function.
Fair distribution implies a radical redistribution of resources and an end to what the document calls the “private capture of the common wealth,” in other words, just what you’re calling for. But it’s framed as the pursuit of happiness, enshrined as an inalienable right in Western (dominant) political discourse.
This is wonderful to know. Please keep us updated when the next conference is, and how we can take part in making it even better. I want to bring happiness to the world.
The 225 richest people own as much as the 2.5 billion poorest. To change this can not come from some governments (Top down). It has to be a bottom up process, on a similar way as the women’s lib movements did in the western countries in the late sixties. The only way to make it non violent is to do it now, not when the 2.5 billions will be 5 billions