Does democracy bring happiness?

Our leaders should read this before we topple another regime to "help" people:
http://www.nd.edu/~adutt/activities/documents/InglehartHappinessandDemocracy1.pdf

Hopefully you polisci grad students can chime in here. I'm not sure if this study is quack, but the topic is definitely worth discussing and you know much more about the subject than I do.

It's fairly obvious that democracy, economic growth, and personal happiness are correlated during our lifetimes and across the globe. But what causes what is much harder to demonstrate. Probably most experts would agree that there is a synergistic, multi-directional relationship. Ron Inglehart from Univ. Michigan recently presented a study on the subject. He used metrics from Freedom House and the World Values Survey to measure the levels of democracy (evaluation of political rights) and happiness (subjective life satisfaction survey), respectively, in 40 nations over 25 years. There may be some bias to the study, since he seemed to focus on European and/or developed nations.

As prelude to the analysis, correct me if I'm wrong but I infer that his social model goes something like this: wealth gains allow people to spend less time caring about survival and more time for self-expression and individual rights (Postmaterialism), which leads to more happiness/life satisfaction, psychological awareness, and cultural acceptance of those values. That in turn creates a desire for sociopolitical institutions that mature and protect those freedoms, which are the building blocks of democracy. Tolerance of minority groups/viewpoints, productive dialogue among rivals, power/resource sharing, and cultural exchange also help. But if a nation is missing any of those things, then probably it won't work (Iraq). So if democracy is suddenly introduced on a society, will that facilitate economic growth, cultural tolerance, and personal contentment?

During the late Cold War until the fall of the USSR, happiness and democracy were highly correlated worldwide (r = 0.7-0.8). But strangely, with the spread of democracy in Eastern Europe and parts of the Americas/East Asia after the Berlin Wall fell, the happiness index declined. However, general maialse was already widespread in Eastern Europe (poverty, revolts) during the 1980s, which probably contributed to the collapse of Russian control there. While the former Soviet bloc experienced major democratic reforms from 1980-1995, their economic system fell apart as the USSR folded, and with it the happiness index. Over 50% of Russians surveyed said they were "unhappy" in 1995, much higher than 1980 or 2006, when political rights were more limited. Yet due to the post-9/11 oil boom, wealth and happiness rose a lot in the last 6 years, even though democracy suffered under Putin's leadership. So the former USSR example demonstrates an inverse correlation.

The author seems to imply that a transition to democracy won't fix everything in a troubled, authoritarian society. It might help stimulate long term improvements, but for the short term, probably economic viability and cultural acceptance are much more critical. So even if America was granted "world police" rights and we deposed Mugabe, the Iranian Mullahs, the Burmese generals, the Khartoum government, Putin's cronies, etc., that doesn't mean those countries would spontaneously become Sweden (as we know from our last two invasions and coups, though maybe the last few stubborn neocons are still in denial). Economic growth leads to more culture acceptance of self-expression values, which increases demand for more personal freedoms, and that in turn will inspire democratic reforms from the inside (we will see if that happens in atypical cases like China).

To make this argument quantitative, they used regression analysis to try to determine how much various factors contributed to changes in a nation's happiness index from 1990-2000. They examined per capita GDP, population growth rate, democracy/political rights, and Postmaterialist values (self-expression, free choice, etc.). Of these variables, strangely democracy had the least impact in explaining the variance of shifts in happiness among a subset of nations studied where complete data was available. If you made a pie chart composed of all the factors that cause a nation's happiness index to change (also including random variation), democracy would be a tiny slice at 1% or so. The economic and social/cultural factors were more influential, though also limited (~14%). So even if you put all the pieces in place, it's no guarantee that a nation will succeed (assuming happiness is a measure of national success). Those factors seem to be strong predictors of the absolute level of happiness in a country, but not a good predictor of changes in happiness. I am not sure what that really means, but I think he's saying that if you examine a nation with a high degree of democracy, probably those people will be very happy. But if you suddenly raise a nation's democracy from low to high, their happiness won't necessarily improve if it was starting from a low level (again Iraq, Afghanistan). Though if you also boost their economic and cultural health, you have a higher chance of increasing happiness. Wow, all that effort for a fairly obvious statement.

Therefore, merely bombing out a country and sacking an autocratic government generally won't improve daily life and make people happier, based on humanity's track record in the last 30 years. It seems that blanket economic sanctions won't usher in democratic reforms either, because they de-empower the populace towards pursuing Postmaterialist values and sociopolitical participation. So maybe our saber-rattling politicians need to stop discussing democracy and elections until we address the more pressing problems of disease, poverty, and social intolerance first. Probably the greatest achievement of the disastrous Bush Administration is their Africa AIDS policy (although still flawed and overly emphasizing abstinence). Our $3B in aid has probably gone farther to advance world peace, quality of life, and political freedom than his 2 wars of "liberation". The more healthy, prosperous, socially-connected people in a country, the more likely they will work for democratic reform without having to fire a single shot. Starving, marginalized, disgruntled people are too weak to overthrow their despots and remake their societies, no matter how many CIA agents we send in. In fact, it's much easier for a dictator to keep desperate people under his thumb.

Sorry if this seems boring or trivial to you, but really the US took it for granted when it invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. The former nation was one of the poorest and culturally conservative places on earth, and the latter was a cauldron of sectarian intolerance. Both were closed off to the outside world and very primitive in terms of established democracy-like traditions and institutions (Iran is much better in comparison). So for the future, what does that mean for regime changes, economic development, and promoting democracy in places where it's lacking? I guess to me, it's a warning that nations like Zimbabwe and Myanmar are not going to get better any time soon, even with full openness and cooperation from all parties. There is no quick fix. Instead, we have to spend decades (yes, decades) to sow the seeds of tolerance, modernize the economy, and improve social institutions/participation/exchange. Maybe along the lines of South Korea (a former poor military dictatorship, but endowed with a robust industry and a good relationship with the West) or Slovenia (formerly under Tito communism, but won independence through voting not war, and now is a part of the EU).

So if we really care about helping people and spreading democracy, embargoes and wars are the WORST possible things to do. But of course all this assumes that America's foreign policy strategy is to increase worldwide quality of life, not US hegemony. Perceptions are also important, especially due to the West's piss-poor track record in the developing world. If we go abroad with genuinely good intentions to fight disease, increase education, improve social institutions, and grow economies, then we have to stop the exploiters and profiteers who destroy trust and credibility. The corporations that prop up dictators, pollute, or plunder resources through klepto-contracts, NGOs that try to "adopt orphans" (i.e. steal children, even if they are taking them to a better life) or promote narrow ideology/religion, doctors who claim to be "saving lives" but are actually testing unsafe drugs in unregulated clinical trials, and diplomats like Condi Rice who refuse to compromise or even engage in preliminary dialogue... they need to take a hike.