I love the reply, Pepe, for you express good (and painful) points. I will immediately support you in discussing how happiness is indeed a value that does not express in how far nations suppress other nations.
What happiness does show is the level of people not-suppressing other people within their own societies.
What I dislike most about nations that were former colonies is that they somehow cling to a president, a single person in top, even when the elections for the House are proportional.
Please have a look at this graph I made in 2006 (using good sources, nationmaster.com and CIA World Factbook).
It shows that nations with winner-take-all and proportional voting nations with a president can suppress their own more than nations with proportional voting and no empowered president (or said differently, give more to the elite in their nations than the rest).
Ghana has a strong president, and it votes in districts. That is not the best format for a happy nation. It will benefit the elite.
Ghana has a gini index of 43.5, which is a very bad number. So much of society flows to the elite.
I would not be happy in such a nation.
It is like former colonies are not awake; still following that power system that they endured at some point in time; not valuing each other as equals enough.
Happiness is not just about power, richness, and freedom. It is about being valued within one’s own society.
Curious how you will reply. I am not undermining your reasons and arguments. I am pointing to suppressive systems still in place in what were once colonies. An empowered president is not good for the happiness index.
