5.4. Reduction of inequality and poverty

Perhaps more than development, it is reasonable to expect democracies to reduce economic disparities. Even when a country achieves economic growth, will wealth be distributed in such a way that all citizens of the country will have a share and lead a better life? Is economic growth in democracies accompanied by increased inequalities among the people? Or do democracies lead to a just distribution of goods and opportunities?

In democracies, there is an expectation that economic growth should also reduce inequality in wealth distribution. This means that as a country becomes richer, all citizens should benefit from this growth. However, there are questions about whether this actually happens in practice. You should consider whether democracies manage to distribute wealth fairly or if they lead to increased economic disparities instead.

Think of a school where a new fundraising event collects money for improvements. If some students get all the resources, while others get none, the school is not promoting equality among students. Similarly, in a democracy, if only a few people benefit from economic growth, the larger community suffers, similar to how some students might feel left out.

Democracies are based on political equality. All individuals have equal weight in electing representatives. Parallel to the process of bringing individuals into the political arena on an equal footing, we find growing economic inequalities. A small number of ultra-rich enjoy a highly disproportionate share of wealth and incomes. Not only that, their share in the total income of the country has been increasing. Those at the bottom of the society have very little to depend upon. Their incomes have been declining.

Democracy promotes political equality, meaning every citizen has the same voting power. However, while everyone has equal rights to vote and participate in politics, economic inequality often persists. A small wealthy class continues to amass more wealth, creating a gap between them and the poorer citizens. This can lead to situations where those who are economically disadvantaged struggle to meet basic needs like food, health care, and education.

Imagine a community where each family gets to vote on how to spend a shared budget for improvements. While every family votes equally, if some families are wealthier, they might still dominate the decisions, leaving poorer families with less access to essential services, much like how economic power can overshadow political equality in a society.

In actual life, democracies do not appear to be very successful in reducing economic inequalities. The poor constitute a large proportion of our voters and no party will like to lose their votes. Yet democratically elected governments do not appear to be as keen to address the question of poverty as you would expect them to. The situation is much worse in some other countries. In Bangladesh, more than half of its population lives in poverty. People in several poor countries are now dependent on the rich countries even for food supplies.

Despite being elected to serve all citizens, democratic governments often neglect the needs of the poorer segments of society. For example, there may be many poor voters, but political parties might prioritize the needs or interests of wealthier voters who can provide more campaign support. In countries like Bangladesh, where a significant portion of the population lives in poverty, the failure to address this issue can lead to dependence on wealthier nations even for basic needs.

Consider a local government that focuses on attracting businesses and wealthy residents instead of supporting local low-income households. Although everyone's votes count equally within the community, the voices of the wealthy may be louder, leading to policies that benefit them more than those in need. This can be compared to a class project where the loudest voices dictate how the group spends its resources, often ignoring the needs of quieter members.

--