ECONOMIC inequality has increased in the US during the last three decades. From World War II to the oil shocks in the 1970s, US was well on the way of becoming a more equal society but this trend reversed in 1973. A look at the change in Gini coefficient, a measure of inequality of income distribution in a country, demonstrates the rise of inequality since then. From a low of 0.394 in 1970, it increased to 0.408 in 1990 and to 0.462 in 2000. The current value of Gini coefficient in US is more similar to its value in the developing countries.
While it is accepted that economic inequality leads to hardship and inequality of opportunity, whether economic inequality leads to political inequality and complete disenfranchisement is contested. There are two reasons of this debate, one ideological and the other empirical.
The ideological reason of not accepting the link of economic inequality and political inequality is that admirers of democracy want to believe that democracy is the best system available to all societies, irrespective of their economic circumstances. They fear that if it became accepted that democracy serves the rich in unequal societies, the march toward a more democratic world would be slowed.
The empirical reason for the lack of link between economic and political inequality is the lack of evidence. For the western societies, economic and political equality usually arrived together or economic equality preceded political equality.
Similar is the case for the East Asian countries. In contrast to the experience of the developing countries, it was the political rather than the economic inequality, which was more entrenched. Therefore, until now, it was difficult to find a genuine democracy with widespread economic inequality. US is the first democratic society that has shown such a disparity of wealth.
Research has demonstrated that economic inequality in US is generating political inequality at several levels. The most basic level is voting in national and state elections. For participating in this activity, you don’t have to sacrifice much but even then only 50 per cent of the people vote in presidential elections and for other elections, the percentage is lower.
These figures, however, hide many other differences. For example, while about half of the white Americans voted in November 2000, only 27 per cent of the Hispanic Americans did so. In terms of economic inequality, a survey in the 1990s showed that nine out of ten people having family incomes above $75000 voted but only five out of ten people having family incomes under $15000 followed suit.
At a higher level, political inequality is observed in making contact with one’s representative or doing campaign work for your favourite candidate. Politicians usually make their policies in consultation with their campaign teams, media and more vocal constituents. It is difficult for them to judge voter’s choice otherwise.
The results again show the same trend of economic inequality translating into political inequality. High-income families do twice the campaign work for their candidates and have twice the number of contacts with their representative.
Participation in civic organizations is another type of political activity. These organizations unite people and raise their concerns to politicians. During the last 20 years, the organizations, which were mainly a refuge of poor like trade unions, community organizations etc. are on the decline. However, business and professional associations, mainly a vehicle of wealthy, are increasing and becoming more powerful.
At the surface, it appears that low-income groups can compete with the high-income groups in voting or campaign work, as one needs only time and effort to be successful, not high-income. But a deeper analysis shows that economic status do effect participation as poor have less free time. They are busy in putting meals on the table or responding to violence, teen pregnancies, drugs and criminals, all of which are more prevalent in poorer localities etc.
Another level of political participation, and probably the most important in US, is using lobbyists. The importance of powerful lobbyists in making federal and state policies in US is well- documented.
Recently, a lobbyist Jack Abrahamoff revealed to a federal jury in Washington how he provided free vacations, yachts, cash and houses to congressmen and senators for accepting the input of his clients in government policies. He told the jury that what he was doing was not atypical and Washington insiders agree.
What are the chances of poor people influencing public policy by lobbying? They can make their own organizations but they will not get access to politicians. Professional lobbyists, as has been revealed, spend millions of dollars to get access. Economic inequality denies poor individuals this important avenue to get their input in public policy.
It is clear that economic inequality has circumscribed the role low-income groups can play in US democracy. Previously, if only 10 per cent of the electorate was facing disenfranchisement, now this number is increasing and is close to thirty percent.
Regular tax cuts for rich, lower welfare payments and recent response of all three levels of government to hurricane Katrina attest to the fact that US democracy is losing its fight against corporate interests.
