It turns out that there is a significant positive relationship between democracy and happiness.

“A more democratic system is likely to produce political outcomes closer to citizens’ preferences than a system with fewer democratic elements. […] greater exposure to democracy can be expected to improve individual well-being.

So write researchers David Dorn, Justina AV Fischer, Gebhard Kirchgässner and Alfonso Sousa-Poza. They conducted a cross-country analysis of twenty-eight countries using data collected in a survey by the International Social Survey Program (ISSP). They found that, “even after controlling for culture, income, and many individual socio-demographic characteristics,” such as language and religion, there was a “positive and significant relationship between democracy and happiness.”

Having a say in governance, it seems, is good for mental and emotional well-being.

“Happiness” and “personal satisfaction or well-being” are used interchangeably in this study. The ISSP survey used by Dorn and his co-authors asked, “If you were to consider your life in general these days, how happy or unhappy would you say you are, overall?” Respondents could say they were “very happy”, “fairly happy”, “not very happy” or “not happy at all”.

The data is most striking when comparing northern European counties with eastern European countries, which emerged with various forms of government after decades of Soviet rule. Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia and Hungary, for example, all had less than 10% of respondents choosing “very happy”. Latvia and Russia had less than 5% “very happy” respondents. Ireland tops the ‘very happy’ scale at 44% and tied with New Zealand for the lowest percentage of those who say they are ‘not at all happy’ at 0.6%. The United States was 36.7% “very happy”, 52.4% “somewhat happy”, 8.9% “not very happy” and 2% “not at all happy”.

“The effect of democracy on happiness is stronger in countries with an established democratic tradition,” observe the authors. For countries emerging from authoritarianism, it “may take some time for the full benefits of democracy in the form of greater individual life satisfaction to be reaped.” The authors do not notice that countries become less democratic over time.

Noting that income growth can have a “positive effect on personal happiness in the short term, but not in the long term,” Dorn’s team points to other studies that show “the average level of satisfaction with of living has remained constant in many countries despite considerable economic growth. growth.” For example, countries at the extremes of the Gross National Product scale may have “nearly the same average personal happiness score”. Differences in “economic status within a country” however have an “impact clear and constant on personal happiness”.

In addition to causing unhappiness, extreme inequalities of wealth within countries are also detrimental to democracy. Combining democracy and socialism, as in the Nordic countries, suggests even more happiness.

Since that study, well-established democracies like the United States and the United Kingdom have suffered severe shocks to their political systems. National forces against democracy, from legitimate parties to terrorist cells, are backed by billionaires and foreign authoritarian regimes. When at least one billionaire, personally spending millions on U.S. Senate races, makes it clear that his definition of “freedom” is incompatible with democracy, the future of democracy – and happiness – is a matter that deserves to be asked.

Support JSTOR everyday! Join our new membership program on Patreon today.