The word “democracy” derives from the Greek dēmokratia, a union of dēmos, people, and kratia, power. As the definition suggests, ordinary people in a democracy should have the power to decide what political reforms they want to see, to establish a system they are happy to live in. In practice, however, we see that it is not quite like that. Today, the masses are skeptical about democracies, and several recent political decisions have caused much controversy among citizens on a global level. It is the case of Brexit and Donald Trump’s election, which divided people into two very different schools of thought. It is also the case in Italy, where citizens are complaining about a President of the Council of Ministers they did not elect. It is the case of many countries expressing resentment towards their systems, opposing the decisions that are supposed to make their lives better. Satisfaction with democracies has decreased in the past few decades, and with that, so has general well-being. And when these two feelings are low, it means that people are not truly happy.

 

The measurement of something as abstract as happiness has only recently become a topic of interest. Governments have started to consider the importance of joy as an indicator to well-being: several surveys and indexes have been made for this purpose, such as the World Happiness Report by the Columbia University, the Human Development Index and the Better Life Index, all indicators that aim at defining what should be done to increase general well-being. An International Day of Happiness, happening every 20th March since 2013, has also been established by the United Nations, to remind that human progress comes as a consequence of well-being and not only economic growth. 

 

This topic first appeared in Ancient Greece, when 2350 years ago, Aristotle started to question what the ultimate purpose of human life was, and came to the answer that happiness is the only objective that, contrary to all others, has an end in itself. “Happiness is a kind of satisfaction with the achievement of one's most basic ends,” explains David Hillel-Ruben, professor emeritus of philosophy at Birkbeck, University of London. To Aristotle, happiness was a greater good that could only be achieved by pursuing all aims in life, and not just single ones. Pleasure and money were then just means to reach happiness, but not happiness itself.

 

But as time passed, wealth gained progressively more and more importance, until a whole worship of money took shape, and Aristotle’s lesson was somehow forgotten. “I am not a philosopher who thinks there is no value at all in material goods,” comments Simona Aimar, professor of philosophy at University College London (UCL),  “but it seems to me that material goods are not exhausting the range of human needs. Merely focusing on them amounts to disregarding part of ourselves. And when we do that, we are not fully happy.”

 

Nevertheless, statistics have found out that on a global scale, the happiest countries are usually also some of the richest: in 2016, Denmark ranked first in the World Happiness Index, followed by Norway, Switzerland, the Netherlands and Sweden. But oddly, Denmark itself is not even on the top ten list of countries with the highest Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Even stranger is the case of the United States, 13th happiest country in the world: research have found out that while the country has experienced a sharp economic growth in the past few decades, its population has not become happier.

 

Suddenly, the obvious “money can buy everything” assumption starts to totter. Gross Domestic Product,  formerly the one and only joy indicator, is now understood to be insufficient to measure all aspects of well-being alone. “Our Gross National Product, now, is over $800 billion dollars a year, but it counts air pollution and cigarette advertising, and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage,” said John F. Kennedy, at the time President of the United States, in his speech at Kansas University in March 1968, “It measures everything in short, except that which makes life worthwhile.”

 

Perhaps the world should just follow the example of Bhutan, a small Himalayan country that in the 1970s introduced a completely new concept, Gross National Happiness (GNH), which opened the doors to progress. GNH calculates well-being through four pillars: good governance, sustainable socio-economic development, cultural preservation and environmental conservation, so it gives a more extensive view on well-being than GNP alone. Following the results of the survey, the king of Bhutan Jigme Singye Wangchuck realised that an absolute monarchy was not beneficial to his people, so he abdicated in 2008 and left the crown to his son, Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuck, who was appointed the first king of a new democratic, constitutional monarchy.

 

Although the GNH would probably not be applicable any bigger country than Bhutan, it certainly teaches how important it is to consider happiness in all aspects of life, including politics. As the 2012 World Happiness Report explains, well-being is characterised by a series of personal and external factors that only when satisfied can assure happiness. While personal factors are the responsibility of the individual, governments can work on improving the external ones, which include income, work, community and governance. When these aspects are not fulfilled, so for example if unemployment is high and governance is poor, people’s happiness decreases, and satisfaction plummets as well.

 

Numbers show that the situation with democracy today is not looking bright: a Gallup survey discovered that in 2016 just under a third of Americans claimed to be satisfied with the way things are going in the United States. In several European countries, especially Greece, Spain and Italy, respectively 95%, 89% and 86% of the population thinks that the current economic system favours the wealthy, according to a PEW research that dates back at 2013. Gallup again reported that the problems U.S. citizens were more concerned about in 2016 were the state of economy, cited by 16% of the population, and dissatisfaction with the government, expressed by 13% of citizens. Dissatisfaction that a few months ago, several Americans expressed towards the election of Donald Trump as their new president.

 

“I think the GOP has gerrymandered so many districts in their favour that it’s getting hard to feel there is as much representational democracy going on right now as there should be,” comments Trix Middlekauff, writer and editor based in Philadelphia, “voter suppression is a problem, and money certainly buys more influence than it should in what is supposed to be a democracy.”

 

Citizens are angry, dissatisfied, exhausted with changes they did not want. But Donald Trump’s appointment, Brexit and all the other major decisions that generated the strongest feelings among people within the country and around the globe were all decisions that they voted for themselves. “Citizens can be both highly critical of their government and yet highly supporting of their democratic system,” says Damarys Canache, professor of political science at the University of Illinois. “Winners should be more satisfied with the political system generally, and of course with the specific electoral outcome; then, it is a bit surprising that in the aftermath of the Brexit Referendum, a substantial number of voters began to show what seems like buyer’s remorse.”

 

Del Dickson, professor of political science and international relations at San Diego University, thinks that part of the decision in favour of both Brexit and Trump was an expression of frustration among the electorate. “It was a chance to protest, and to stick it in the eye of the establishment. This is a worrying sign that democracy is not giving voters enough room to express dissatisfaction in other ways, and that government is, perhaps, not sufficiently responsive to popular frustrations.”

 

No exact formula can determine why people are so displeased, but experts revealed some factors that certainly play a role: there is fear of economic recession, skepticism towards national security (especially since the dark shadow of terrorism has taken place in the back of our minds), and misinformation among the electorate when they are called to vote. That is why, for example, Italians complain about Paolo Gentiloni being the “fourth President of the Council of Ministers not elected by the public”, when that decision has never been within their power since the Italian Republic was found. Misinformation is dangerous, especially when it leads people vote for something they did not fully understand. “Democracies need to provide citizens with outcomes—political, social, economic—that citizens value,” comments professor Canache.

 

Aristotle believed that happiness was not a temporary emotion, but a goal that needed time and dedication to be achieved. With politics, the issue is that a system will never be able to please everyone, although it certainly can satisfy the majority. “Democracy is imperfect, but the alternatives are worse,” concludes Brian Gaines, professor of political science at the University of Illinois. “Perhaps someone in ancient Greece, soon after democracy's birth, was already noting that "better than..." is not the same as "best" or "perfect."