Between happiness and governance: What Bangladesh can learn from Bhutan about democracy

Democracy is often measured through familiar indicators: free and fair elections, civil liberties, the rule of law, political competition, freedom of expression and strong democratic institutions.

But the experience of the 21st century has exposed a fundamental weakness in this conventional understanding. A country can hold elections and maintain formal democratic institutions while its citizens experience economic insecurity, inequality, political polarisation, declining trust and poor public services.

This raises a more fundamental question: What is democracy ultimately supposed to deliver?

For citizens, democracy is not an abstract institutional arrangement. It is also about whether they can live with dignity, participate meaningfully in society, trust public institutions and imagine a secure future for themselves and their children.

This is where Bhutan offers an intriguing, if imperfect, lesson.

The small Himalayan kingdom's transition from absolute monarchy to constitutional democracy was unusual. It was not primarily driven by mass protest or external pressure. Instead, the country's political transformation evolved alongside a distinctive philosophy of governance: Gross National Happiness, or GNH.

Developed under the leadership of King Jigme Singye Wangchuck, GNH challenged the assumption that economic growth, conventionally measured by Gross Domestic Product, should be the principal measure of national progress. The underlying argument was simple: development should ultimately improve people's wellbeing while protecting society, culture and the natural environment.

Bhutan did not create a perfect model of democracy. Nor should Bangladesh attempt to copy its political system. But its experience raises a question that democracies across the Global South can no longer comfortably ignore:

Can democracy become more resilient when governments measure success by how people actually experience their lives?

The four pillars of happiness

Bhutan's GNH framework is built around four broad pillars: sustainable and equitable socioeconomic development, environmental conservation, preservation and promotion of culture, and good governance. These are further developed through nine domains and measured through the GNH Index.

What makes the framework politically interesting is that it places governance alongside economic, social, cultural and environmental wellbeing.

The first pillar, sustainable and equitable socioeconomic development, recognises that economic growth matters, but growth alone is insufficient.

Bhutan has invested significantly in education, healthcare and rural development despite its limited economic resources. Its progress in human development illustrates the point. According to UNDP data, Bhutan's Human Development Index rose substantially from 0.494 in 2000 to above 0.68 in recent years.

Bangladesh faces a different challenge.

Over the past two decades, the country has achieved impressive economic and social progress, including poverty reduction, rising life expectancy, improvements in women's empowerment and significant gains in health and education.

Yet aggregate progress has not automatically translated into equal access to opportunity or economic security.

Income inequality, precarious employment, youth unemployment and uneven access to quality public services remain significant concerns. The lesson from Bhutan is not that Bangladesh should abandon GDP growth. Rather, GDP should be treated as a means, not the final destination of development.

A growing economy that does not generate sufficient decent employment, social security and equal opportunities can ultimately undermine public confidence in the political system.

The second pillar, environmental conservation, is even more relevant to Bangladesh.

Bhutan has constitutionally committed itself to maintaining extensive forest cover and has gained global recognition for its climate-conscious development approach. Its environmental policies demonstrate how ecological protection can be treated as a core element of national development rather than an obstacle to it.

For Bangladesh, climate vulnerability makes this particularly important.

River pollution, deforestation, wetland degradation, the loss of mangroves, extreme heat and rising sea levels are not merely environmental problems. They are questions of human security, public health, livelihoods and intergenerational justice.

A government that allows environmental degradation to undermine the lives of future generations cannot convincingly claim to be delivering sustainable democratic governance.

Environmental protection, therefore, should not be treated as a luxury that becomes relevant only after economic development. It should be considered part of the democratic obligation to protect citizens and future generations.

The third pillar, cultural preservation, presents a more complicated challenge.

Bhutan has placed considerable emphasis on protecting its cultural identity amid globalisation. Bangladesh, too, possesses a rich linguistic and cultural heritage. Yet cultural identity has frequently become entangled with partisan politics.

This distinction matters.

Culture should create social belonging, not political exclusion.

A democratic state must protect language, heritage, religious freedom and cultural diversity without allowing any particular interpretation of national identity to become a tool for marginalising political or social groups.

For Bangladesh, cultural preservation should therefore mean protecting the country's pluralistic identity rather than using culture as an instrument of political legitimacy.

The fourth pillar, good governance, brings Bhutan's philosophy closest to the core concerns of democratic theory.

Bhutan's understanding of governance incorporates effectiveness, accountability, transparency, responsiveness and public trust. These are not peripheral concerns. They are the mechanisms through which citizens experience the state.

A constitution may guarantee rights. Elections may provide political competition. But if public institutions are unresponsive, corrupt or inaccessible, democratic legitimacy gradually weakens.

That is perhaps the most important lesson Bhutan offers Bangladesh: institutional quality is not separate from human wellbeing. It is one of its foundations.

Democracy beyond the ballot box

The global democratic experience reinforces this concern.

Political scientist Larry Diamond described the deterioration of democracy in many parts of the world as a "democratic recession". The phenomenon is not simply about military coups or the disappearance of elections. It also involves weakening institutions, declining trust, restrictions on political opposition, attacks on the rule of law and growing political polarisation.

The problem is therefore deeper than whether citizens are allowed to vote.

If citizens repeatedly participate in elections but remain dissatisfied with public services, economic opportunity, political accountability and institutional fairness, democratic institutions can lose their legitimacy.

Recent surveys across established democracies point to a similar problem. Citizens increasingly believe their political systems require substantial reform.

This should concern democracies everywhere.

Democracy was never intended to be merely a periodic procedure through which citizens select political representatives. Elections are essential, but they are only one component of democratic governance.

Citizens also expect governments to provide security, justice, opportunity and dignity.

This is where the GNH philosophy intersects with a broader literature on wellbeing.

Research on wellbeing has increasingly moved beyond income and material consumption to include relational and subjective dimensions of people's lives. These include social relationships, capabilities, personal perceptions, cultural values and a sense of belonging.

The implications for democracy are significant.

A citizen who is economically insecure, socially isolated, politically powerless and distrustful of public institutions is unlikely to develop a strong attachment to democratic values simply because an election takes place every few years.

Conversely, citizens who experience economic security, social connection, dignity, agency and responsive institutions have stronger reasons to value and defend democratic governance.

Democracy therefore has both a procedural dimension and a lived dimension.

The ballot box determines who exercises political power. But the quality of everyday life determines whether citizens believe that political system is worth sustaining.

What does this mean for Bangladesh?

Bangladesh's democratic challenge cannot be separated from its development story.

The country has made considerable socioeconomic progress and is on course for graduation from the United Nations' Least Developed Country category. Yet its democratic performance has not kept pace with its development achievements.

The Economist Intelligence Unit's Democracy Index placed Bangladesh 100th among 167 countries in its assessment cited in recent discussions of the country's democratic decline. The country's political trajectory has been marked by concerns over electoral credibility, political unrest, institutional weakness and declining public trust.

The central challenge now is not simply to hold elections.

It is to rebuild the conditions under which citizens believe democratic institutions work for them.

Bangladesh does not need to import Bhutan's GNH framework wholesale. The two countries are fundamentally different in population, geography, political history, economy and social complexity.

But Bangladesh can internalise the normative principle behind it: development and democracy should ultimately be judged by their impact on human dignity and collective wellbeing.

That could mean rethinking how government performance is measured.

Economic growth should continue to matter, but it should be accompanied by systematic measures of public trust, service satisfaction, inequality, employment security and access to essential services.

Environmental sustainability should move from policy rhetoric to governance priority through climate adaptation, river restoration, green infrastructure, better urban management and protection of biodiversity.

Cultural policy should strengthen social cohesion rather than partisan identity politics. Protection of heritage should go hand in hand with religious freedom, minority rights and respect for pluralism.

And, above all, institutional reform should focus on rebuilding trust through transparency, accountability, anti-corruption measures, responsive public services and meaningful citizen participation.

These are not simply development objectives.

They are democratic objectives.

From GDP to GNH thinking

The most useful lesson Bangladesh can draw from Bhutan is not to replace GDP with a happiness index.

That would be too simplistic.

Economic growth remains indispensable for a developing country. Without economic resources, governments cannot adequately finance healthcare, education, infrastructure, social protection or climate adaptation.

The real challenge is to change the question from "How fast is the economy growing?" to "What is economic growth doing for people's lives?"

That requires a broader conception of public policy.

A government could, for example, evaluate major policies through several questions. Does this policy create decent employment? Does it reduce inequality? Does it improve access to public services? Does it increase or reduce public trust? Does it strengthen social cohesion? What are its environmental consequences? Does it protect future generations?

Such questions would not replace conventional economic indicators. They would complement them.

This approach could also improve the quality of democratic accountability.

When citizens have clear information about whether public institutions are improving healthcare, education, employment, environmental protection and public services, democratic debate becomes more substantive. Political parties are then forced to compete not only over identity and slogans, but also over measurable improvements in people's lives.

That is where wellbeing can become politically meaningful.

It can transform democracy from a competition over power into a competition over performance.

The limits of the Bhutan model

There is, however, an important caveat to the Bhutan story.

GNH should not be romanticised. Happiness is difficult to define and even more difficult for governments to measure objectively. A government cannot simply declare its citizens happy and thereby escape scrutiny over elections, civil liberties, opposition rights or institutional checks and balances.

Bhutan's own political and cultural circumstances are also unique. Its small population, geography, historical development and political traditions make direct comparisons with Bangladesh difficult.

There is another important tension.

A government that places too much emphasis on collective happiness could potentially justify paternalistic policies in the name of social wellbeing. Democratic governance must therefore maintain a clear distinction between promoting wellbeing and deciding what citizens should consider a good life.

This is why Bhutan's experience should be treated as a source of questions rather than a ready-made blueprint.

The democratic foundations of elections, civil liberties, pluralism, political opposition, judicial independence and the rule of law remain indispensable.

GNH adds another dimension to the debate. It asks whether those institutions are producing the conditions under which citizens can live meaningful and dignified lives.

A broader definition of democratic success

The most important contribution of Bhutan's experiment may therefore be conceptual rather than institutional.

It challenges the assumption that democracy can be assessed entirely through procedures.

A healthy democracy needs free elections, but it also needs capable institutions. It needs civil liberties, but also economic dignity. It needs political competition, but also social trust. It needs growth, but also environmental sustainability.

In other words, democracy is not only about how citizens choose their government. It is also about how that government shapes the conditions in which citizens live.

For Bangladesh, this distinction could become increasingly important.

The country does not need a "Bangladeshi GNH" in the literal sense. What it needs is a broader conception of democratic success, one that asks not only who won the election? but also are citizens safer, freer, more equal, more prosperous and more trusting of their institutions?

These questions are especially important at a time when democracies around the world are confronting declining trust and growing public dissatisfaction.

Bhutan's most important contribution to the global democratic debate may therefore be its provocation rather than its prescription.

A democracy that cannot improve people's lives will eventually struggle to convince people of democracy's value.

The future of democratic consolidation in Bangladesh will depend not only on strengthening electoral institutions, political competition and constitutional safeguards, but also on creating a state that citizens experience as fair, responsive and capable of improving their lives.

Perhaps that is where happiness and governance stop being competing ideas and become two sides of the same democratic question.

The author is an undergraduate Political Science student at University of Dhaka.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and views of The Business Standard.