He tries not to get the three confused.
|
He tries not to get the three confused. |
|
|
SECTIONS |
HAPPINESS IS A WARM VOTE |
THIS SECTION |
||||||
|
Home HIV and the Developing World Another World gay life on five continents God Would Be An Atheist Fiction Opinion Reviews martin@martinforeman.com Appeal to your wallet:  15 December 2003 World Copyright © Martin Foreman |
“Democracy is not my goal.” Well, that was a commendably frank statement from Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra last week, in response to a call for amendments to the country’s constitution that threatened to limit the PM’s power. In a statement released – deliberately, ironically or accidentally - on Constitution Day, Thaksin said as long as the country could progress and the people were happy, he was not concerned about the means used.* For those unfamiliar with South-East Asian politics, Thaksin is Thailand’s Silvio Berlusconi, but without the singing and with sllghtly more sophistication and tact. A multi-millionaire with fingers in many commercial pies, he founded his own political party – Thai Rak Thai (Thais love Thais) – a few years after Berlusconi unleashed Forza Italia (Let’s go, Italy). TRT won its first election in 2001 and dominates the coalition that governs Siam. While allegations of corruption are as common here as in the rest of the world - and there are well-grounded fears that the country’s national anti-corruption committee has been weakened by political appointments – Thaksin himself is either cleaner than Berlusconi or more successful at distancing himself from the kind of criminal charges that the old crooner and his mates are continually fending off in the Italian courts or parliament. However, as in Italy, freedom of expression and information are threatened by the fact that Thaksin controls a significant proportion of the Thai press and television. Not surprisingly, articles critical of the government are increasingly rare and Reporters Without Borders regularly criticises "government interference with the media". Does it matter? If Thaksin is right – “Democracy is a good and beautiful thing, but it’s just a tool, not our goal. The goal is to give people a good lifestyle, happiness and national progress.” – then we should not be concerned if a few well-connected businessmen make considerable sums of money while a few intellectual egos are bruised. After all, once the basic necessities of food, clothing and shelter have been met, there can be no other goal for human existence except the pursuit of happiness and a government that sets happiness as its goal should be commended. The only other country that I can recall that even mentions the term is the United States, in the preamble to its constitution; unfortunately, the current president, Congress and Supreme Court habitually forget that point in their deliberations and decisions. Certainly Thaksin has stated his aim to lay the groundwork for happiness, promising to eradicate poverty in Thailand within the next decade. If that goal is achieved, all Thais will have the opportunity for seeking physical happiness – the simple, and often underrated, pleasures of sex and sleep, eating, drinking and excretion. Whether or not mental happiness can be achieved is another matter. The first step in that direction is freedom from fear, the basic state that drives much human activity (see last week's column). Fear comes in many forms, including the fear of persecution, violence and imprisonment. It is the responsibility of government to create conditions in which such fear is minimised. In the modern world, this is an increasingly difficult task, but a combination of carrot-and-stick policies – from good education to good policing – should ensure that most citizens live most of their lives free from such fear. There are other fears, of course, over which the government has no control. These range from fear of failure to fear of ridicule, from fear of loneliness to fear of involvement, and so on and so on. These fears are overcome when a state of mental equilibrium is reached. Some of us achieve that state easily, some with more difficulty and over long years, and some die without ever achieving it. Happiness does not depend on the eradication of these fears – although that helps – but on understanding them and giving them no more prominence than they are due. Happiness comes more from a true enjoyment of one’s own life, developing and exploring the skills that nature and nurture have granted us. These may be physical – the athlete in peak condition – or mental – the chess player wrestling with an endgame problem – but above all they say to oneself and the world “I like what I am doing, I like who I am; this activity satisfies every aspect of my being.” Ultimately happiness comes to those who are able to treat life with all the seriousness and levity of a game, where the goal is not to win but to improve, day after day after day. This definition appears to render democracy, or any other form of government, irrelevant. If the government can ensure that each citizen receives the basic necessities of life and is free from free of crime and violence, then what does it matter if the government is autocratic or oligarchic? Well, Khun Thaksin, the answer should be obvious. Freedom of thought, speech and movement are fundamental to happiness. We need to explore the physical and mental world we live in, to test its boundaries. If our ability to investigate and question the actions and motives of those who govern us, or if our ability to replace that government, hopefully with one that better responds to our needs, is similarly limited, then our opportunities for happiness decrease. It is not so much that democracy guarantees happiness – it can’t – but that in the complex world we now live in, the alternatives to democracy reduce the potential for happiness. Unfortunately, democracy is not a one-way path. Democracy gave Germany Adolf Hitler, as it has given Israel Ariel Sharon, Russia Vladimir Putin, the United States George Bush, Italy Silvio Berlusconi and Thailand Thaksin Shinawatra. While none of the last five are on a scale in any way comparable to the first, they have all, to a greater or lesser extent, weakened the democratic system in their countries. In each case the argument has been the same – that the country’s well-being depends on its current rulers suborning the constitution, traditions and / or freedom of movement or information. (To be fair, I should add Tony Blair to the list, since his government’s ongoing “reform” of the House of Lords is a constitutional travesty.) While there may be short-term gains, these are likely to be for the individuals in power and their sympathisers as much as for the population at large; in the long-term, in each of these countries the basic freedoms that every citizen should enjoy have been significantly damaged. It is good that Thaksin recognises that happiness is a worthy goal; it is sad that he does not recognise the importance of democracy in reaching that goal. * Thanks to the 11 December edition of The Nation for information reproduced in this column. |
N |
2002 columns... 2001 columns... This month's good cause:  |
N |