Wellbeing and Democracy

Derek BellNewcastle University

How are democracy and wellbeing related?

Is subjective wellbeing inherently democratic?

How should we use wellbeing data in a democracy?

Is subjective wellbeing inherently democratic (or undemocratic)?

“Subjective well-being is … popular because it is particularly democratic – it grants respect to what people think and feel about their lives. People are not content to have experts evaluate their lives; they believe that their opinions matter” (Diener, Lucas and Oishi, 2005).

“The logical conclusion of much happiness research – that individuals’ own judgements about what is good for them can be overridden by experts wielding clipboards and regression models – is illiberal, undemocratic and unattractively paternalistic” (Johns and Ormerod, 2007).

First-person view of what is a good life

First-person view of what is a good life for me

First-person view of how my life is going in relation to what I believe is a good life (for me)

First-person view of how happy I feel (today)

Collecting data on what people think and feel about their lives is not the same as people participating in or having the opportunity to exercise power in collective decision-making about how society should be organised.

First-person participation (and power) in the decision-making process.

Experts can identify factors (experiences, activities, institutions, etc.) that tend to be associated with people expressing the first-person view that their life is going well and/or that they feel happy.

Experts can identify factors (experiences, activities, institutions, etc.) that will cause you to express the first-person view that your life is going well and/or that you feel happy.

Experts should decide how society should be organised with the aim of maximising aggregate happiness or life-satisfaction.

Experts should decide what you are required to do, permitted to do and prohibited from doing with the aim of maximising your happiness.

Subjective wellbeing is neither inherently democratic nor inherently undemocratic.

How should we use wellbeing data in a democracy?

“Understanding wellbeing as a wicked problem … steers us towards deliberation and scrutiny as central to the agenda … [and points] to the need for pragmatic and legitimate government action” (Bache, Reardon and Anand 2015).

Inclusive Deliberative Democracy

… deliberating how we should live together

Wellbeing data informs deliberation and is part of the public political culture of an inclusive deliberative democracy.

Diverse wellbeing datasets, including both quantitative and qualitative datasets.

So, my suggestion is …

In an Inclusive Deliberative Democracy we should use diverse wellbeing datasets to inform inclusive deliberation and democratic decision-making about how we should organise society and live together.

The all-affected principle: “Everyone who is affected by the decisions of a government should have the right to participate in that government” (Dahl 1970)

The proportionality principle: “Power in any decision-making process should be proportional to individual stakes” (Brighouse and Fleurbaey 2010)

So, my ‘speculative’ suggestion is:

We might use wellbeing data to inform deliberation about who is affected (who should be part of the demos) and how much they are affected or how significant their stake is in the decision (how power in the decision-making process should be distributed).

Subjective wellbeing is neither inherently democratic or undemocratic.

In an Inclusive Deliberative Democracy we should use diverse wellbeing datasets to inform inclusive deliberation and democratic decision-making about how we should organise society and live together.

We might use wellbeing data to inform deliberation about who is affected (who should be part of the demos) and how much they are affected or how significant their stake is in the decision (how power in the decision-making process should be distributed).