You could argue and prove anything you want by making an assumption.
This is exactly what Kuensel does in its unsuccessful attempt to dissect GNH. The editorial likens GNH to central economic planning. Very bold and equally flawed - and almost concludes that GNH curtails our liberty. Quite a claim.
True - GNH is confusing and difficult to understand. It is about how our Government develop policies. But it is also about providing greater opportunities to individuals and the private sector to make their own decisions and choices - in other words - greater liberty. Initiatives like the proposed Enterprise Act, the draft economic and the FDI policies are few of the recent developments.
In short - GNH is about pursuing capitalism responsibly.
Thursday, 22 October 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Disclaimer
2 Comments:
AGREE!!!! I am so glad you made this point, I feel like this is my point exactly, in explaining, defending and justifying GNH. GNH is about happiness, not mood swings. I disagree with the point made in the editorial that providing our rural community with basic benefits and comforts of life has made them less happy. It is so typical that we, living in the capital, owning a car, having a 9-5 work, think that our rural contryfellows should live out their days in ignorance, in what we assume is happiness for them. We think it is our duty to curb their growing desires and materialism. Wait till someone comes and tells them that!
GNH must be about the government striving in its greatest capacity to allow the people to live in happiness. Death, loss, moods are not things that a government can control or need to think about, unless of course the death is an issue, such as a disease which could have been cured if there was a better facility. GNH is a policy of the government in which the main goal is to allow the people to be happy in the governments best capacities. But happiness is a personal thing, and beyond a point, we are the only ones who can make ourselves happy. And instead of questioning the policy and counting on it to make us 'happy' by curbing our desires, we should look into ourselves. But that is only when we have reached that point at which we can say the government has done all it can, when our people are not living in abject poverty, wasting away due to malnutrition, frustrated at no sign of employment, battered by calamities, or abused and assaulted. Then we can afford to think about spiritualism.
I think in a context with equal rights and opportunities, happiness at the policy level does not imply dictating what should make individuals happy but rather educating and empowering people (maximizing their potential) to make their own decisions about what would make them happy. I think people have choices and the essence of happiness is in being able to take forward individual dreams to whatever level within the individual capacity and means. I think if we say "be contented with what you have" (which is very easy for people who are materially prosperous to say it to people who aren't), then we are already imposing limitations. We could instead say "follow your dreams...but don't allow difficulties/challenges to make you unhappy...keep trying...don't give up...you can get where you want to be...with genuine effort on your part...however do also remember that you live in a community/society...let's not be selfish or greedy...let's follow our dreams with honour..."
Post a Comment
This is a moderated blog.Comments that include racism, bigotry or threats will not be approved.