Pursuit of Happiness

            On July 4^th, 1776, thirteen Americna colonies unleashed the Declaration of Independence, penned by Thomas Jefferson, to the world, proclaiming that they could no longer bear to be under the thumb of King George’s tyrannical rule, and instead were now an autonomous entity. The most famous idea that came out of this document is, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

            For years to come, “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” would become the cornerstone of what democracy entails for Americans. A sacred ideal. And yet, where does our happiness lie? The American dream—which attracted thousands of foreigners to come here—is for every individual to be able to work with a steady income, start a family, own a home, raise children, help put them through college, and save up enough money for retirement, while also having enough to purchase top-of-the-line cars, appliances, computers, etc. And have a white picket fence, too. But, as recent events have shown, that is simply not economically possible.

            In America, we have applied the basic democratic principles of government to our daily lives, namely the idea that everyone should have and equal say and a right to vote (although we did have trouble making this a reality, we have always claimed to believe in it). Similarly, Americans have extrapolated and said not only should all individuals have the right to have their voices heard in government, but all individuals should have the right to have their voices heard in the economy, as consumers. In our capitalistic view, Americans naïvely believed that if the majority can get what it wants in the political realm, this will also be true in the economic realm. Unfortunately, this is not viable.

            We often say money doesn’t buy happiness. But in America, our pursuit of happiness is strongly linked to economic stability.

            According to the National Poverty Center, in 2009, 14.3 percent of Americans lived in poverty. Thirty-five percent of American children grew up in poverty (http://www.npc.umich.edu/poverty/). According to a study by the University of Maine, the American healthcare system was “by far the most expensive healthcare system in the world” (http://dll.umaine.edu/ble/U.S.%20HCweb.pdf). Similary, the USA is responsible for 46.5% of the world’s military expenditures, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending). Talk about stark inequalities.

            In America, we have erroneously tied democracy to consumerism. Furthermore, we have spread this belief to other nations, telling others they should also spend in this way. It certainly seems to be the case in Botswana. At present, Botswana’s economy is strong as is its democracy. There is little corruption and large economic growth. It is still working to find ways to fortify its freedoms of speech and press and better include all groups in the political process, since most news reaches citizens by government-controlled radio (“Freedom in the World,” Botswana 2010) and minorities like the Bushmen have little say (“For Some Bushmen, a Homeland Worth the Fight” by Barry Bearak). But, overall, the nation is following in many of America’s footsteps. And the unfortunate result is that it is attempting to fill a pair of shoes that are not the right size.

            A model where democracy creates a society where spending is so rampant can only be successful for as long as the country is economically stable. Botswana doesn’t have the same net worth as the USA, but it is stable. However, if this economy was unstable, democracy would most likely be co-opted for a different, less egalitarian form of government. This is the breeding ground for neo-patrimonialism regimes, a problem that is common in Africa, and is described in “State Formation and Governance in Botswana” by Neil Parsons and James A. Robinson. This is a system in which, in spite of a written Constitution, one ruler is in charge of government, sometimes as a president-for-life, and is above the law. Officials in bureaucratic positions are in place more for the wealth and power those positions accrue, rather than to carry out necessary government functions. Ultimately, this leads to inefficiency and corruption.

In this situation, creating what Max Weber termed a legal-rational government, actually hurts the pocketbooks, and most likely the egos of those in power. In the legal-rational system, power is derived from rules that are written down, applied equally to all, and adjudicated to ensure equal application. Individuals only have power if they hold a political position and their power lasts only as long as they hold that position (Keeping the Republic by Christine Barbour, CQ Press). However, legal-rational authority only works when there is enough to go around, so the commonfolk can earn a decent living, while those in power can continue to lead a cushy lifestyle.

To summarize my ramblings, I conclude by saying, it is high time that Americans and the world redefine what the pursuit of happiness is. The fact of the matter is, no group of people can prosper exponentially when resources are finite. If Botswana’s people wish to have the right to their own pursuit of happiness, then they should heed America’s mistakes and recognize that while economic stability is desirable, it is not the only component of happiness. As Nelson Mandela once said, “Money won’t create success, the freedom to make it will.”

 As Wayne Arnold points out in his New York Times Article “Rethinking the Measure of Growth,” it has become necessary for people in all countries to create a completely transformed vision of prosperity, where the wealth and strength of one’s community comes before the wealth and strength of the individual. If we don’t make a conscious effort to do so, we’re all going to end up unhappy—and our lives and liberties may remain hanging in the balance.

Gandhi said it best: “Earth provides enough to satisfy every man’s need, but not every man’s greed.”