Gross National Happiness and Electoral Politics in Bhutan: Compatible or Contradictory?

 Dr. Asis Mistry

In the foothills of the eastern Himalayas lies a country that has repeatedly defied conventional wisdom. Bhutan, often dubbed the last Shangri-La, transitioned from absolute monarchy to parliamentary democracy in 2008, not in the wake of revolution or international pressure, but at the behest of its own monarch. At the heart of its political and development philosophy lies a concept that continues to fascinate the world—Gross National Happiness (GNH).

But as Bhutan’s electoral democracy matures—with its fourth general elections recently held in 2023—one cannot help but ask: Is GNH compatible with the rough-and-tumble world of electoral politics? Or do the two sit in quiet contradiction?

GNH: A Radical Vision for Governance

Bhutan’s model of Gross National Happiness, introduced by the Fourth King, Jigme Singye Wangchuck, in the 1970s, rests on four pillars: sustainable development, environmental conservation, cultural preservation, and good governance. It is a bold attempt to measure progress beyond GDP, anchoring it instead in human well-being, ecological balance, and spiritual values.

Unlike traditional development models, GNH prioritises collective well-being over individual material wealth. It calls for balance—between modernisation and tradition, between economic growth and environmental limits, between the needs of the present and those of future generations. In many ways, it is both a philosophical worldview and a pragmatic policy framework.

Electoral Democracy: Pluralism, Competition, and Uncertainty

The democratic experiment in Bhutan is still young. Since the first elections in 2008, the country has seen peaceful transfers of power, increasing political awareness, and the evolution of political parties. But elections, by their very nature, invite contestation, populism, and short-termism—forces that often run counter to the measured, long-term orientation of GNH.

In an electoral setting, political parties are incentivised to promise quick returns—roads, subsidies, jobs—often at the expense of deeper, structural reforms. They must differentiate themselves, sometimes sharply, to win votes, even if it means challenging consensus on sensitive issues such as religious identity, environmental regulation, or foreign investment. This logic of political competition can strain Bhutan’s historical emphasis on unity, harmony, and deliberation.

The question, then, is not whether democracy is right for Bhutan—clearly, the country’s peaceful and purposeful transition is a democratic success story—but whether the competitive nature of elections is fully aligned with the slower, more reflective, and holistic approach of GNH.

Tensions on the Ground

Over the past decade, a few areas have exposed the subtle tension between electoral politics and the GNH ethos.

1. Politicisation of Development

Political parties often frame development promises in terms of quick deliverables—construction projects, cash handouts, or employment schemes. While these may meet immediate needs, they can undercut Bhutan’s long-term commitment to sustainability and equitable growth. For example, pressure to increase infrastructure development in fragile ecological zones or to ease restrictions on mining can conflict with Bhutan’s commitment to environmental preservation.

2. Regional and Identity Politics

GNH emphasises social cohesion and the preservation of Bhutan’s unique cultural identity. However, electoral politics can incentivise candidates to appeal to regional loyalties or ethnic identities, potentially undermining national unity. While overt identity politics remains rare in Bhutan compared to other South Asian democracies, the risk increases as party competition intensifies.

3. Media and Political Speech

Democracy requires a free press and open political debate. But Bhutanese culture values restraint, humility, and respect for authority—traits often seen as incompatible with adversarial political discourse. Negative campaigning and politicised narratives can erode trust, especially in a society where harmony is prized.

4. Youth and Employment

The promise of GNH includes the well-being and empowerment of future generations. Yet Bhutan faces rising youth unemployment and migration, leading to disillusionment. Political parties now compete over who can generate more jobs, sometimes through promises of rapid economic liberalisation or foreign investment, which may not align with Bhutan’s cautious, values-driven development model.

Signs of Compatibility: Democracy as a Tool, Not a Threat

Despite these tensions, it would be unfair—and inaccurate—to portray GNH and democracy as inherently at odds. In fact, Bhutan’s democracy has evolved with surprising maturity, showing several ways in which GNH and electoral politics can reinforce each other.

1. Institutional Checks

Bhutan’s Constitution, adopted in 2008, enshrines GNH as a state objective. This means that elected governments are legally and morally obligated to frame policies in line with their principles. Independent institutions, such as the Gross National Happiness Commission (GNHC), act as policy gatekeepers to ensure consistency with GNH values.

2. Educated Electorate

Voter awareness programs and civic education efforts—especially among youth—have helped Bhutanese citizens understand that elections are not only about material gain but about preserving national values. There is growing public expectation that political parties must align their manifestos with GNH, not just market-friendly reforms.

3. Responsible Political Culture

So far, Bhutan’s political parties have largely avoided demagoguery and have operated within a relatively respectful and constructive space. While competition exists, it is tempered by a shared national ethos and a small population that fosters accountability and interpersonal ties.

4. The Monarchy’s Moral Influence

Although constitutionally limited, the monarchy continues to exert immense moral authority. The King’s frequent engagement with citizens and emphasis on unity and well-being reinforce the foundational values of GNH and act as a subtle counterweight to potential excesses in electoral behaviour.

What Lies Ahead?

As Bhutan navigates its democratic future, it faces a crucial challenge: how to institutionalise GNH in a way that enhances democratic deliberation rather than constrains it.

One solution lies in deepening participatory democracy. If GNH is to thrive in a democratic context, it must not be reduced to a top-down metric. Citizens must be involved in defining what happiness means to them, and in evaluating the performance of elected leaders on those terms. This means investing in local governance, participatory budgeting, and inclusive planning.

Another imperative is political education and media responsibility. As political competition increases, Bhutan must nurture a media landscape that is critical but constructive, and a political culture that embraces disagreement without discord.

Lastly, Bhutan must resist the temptation to emulate other electoral democracies wholesale. It should instead carve its own democratic path—one that celebrates pluralism without undermining harmony, and embraces electoral choice while staying rooted in long-term well-being.

The relationship between Gross National Happiness and electoral democracy is not one of contradiction, but of creative tension. GNH offers a moral compass; democracy offers a method. If Bhutan can continue to steer both with care, it may just prove to the world that politics need not be a zero-sum game—and that happiness and democracy, far from being incompatible, can in fact be co-architects of a just and balanced society.

@ Author is Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Calcutta.