Equality, and the claim that political liberty without economic equality is a myth

Introduction

The statement that political liberty in the absence of economic equality is only a myth is a claim of socialist and egalitarian thought. To assess it we need to be clear about what equality means and then see how political and economic spheres connect.

Meaning of equality

As a political ideal equality means that all human beings have equal worth regardless of colour, gender, race or nationality, and deserve equal consideration and respect because of their common humanity. That does not mean identical treatment in every respect: society divides work and functions, and differences of status or reward that follow from it may be acceptable, as long as privileges are not misused. What the ideal rules out is treatment or opportunity that is pre-determined by birth or social circumstance, such as religion, race, caste or gender. A distinction is often drawn between natural inequalities (of talent and capability) and socially produced ones (from unequal opportunity or exploitation); but the line is not always clear, since inequalities long in place were often defended as natural (women as the weaker sex, black people as inferior) and have since been seen as products of power. Many theorists therefore prefer to distinguish inequalities that arise from our choices from those that arise from the family or circumstances into which we are born, and it is the latter that advocates of equality want to reduce.

Is political liberty without economic equality a myth?

The argument for the claim. (1) Political rights are legal rights, but considerable inequality persists in countries which give equal rights to all citizens, because of differences in resources and opportunities. (2) Political rights can be fully exercised only when basic needs are met: for a person living on the pavement who struggles for food and shelter, the right to vote has little worth. (3) For Marx, private ownership of important economic resources gives the owners social and political power to influence state policy and laws, and that threatens democratic government; economic inequality, in the Marxist and socialist view, supports other forms of inequality, so that to tackle it one must go beyond providing equal opportunities and ensure public control over essential resources. (4) Entrenched wealth over generations divides society into classes and lets the wealthy classes block reform. (5) The Indian socialist Lohia insisted on fighting economic inequality along with the other inequalities. (6) Subhas Chandra Bose's idea of freedom included equal distribution of wealth.

The case against the strong form of the claim. (1) Political liberty is real, though incomplete: it allows the poor to vote, organise and protest, and many of the gains of the poor have come through such freedoms. (2) Liberals say political, economic and social inequalities are not necessarily linked and should be tackled in suitable ways; democracy can provide political equality while other strategies address economic and social inequality. (3) Competition under free and fair conditions is held by liberals to be just and efficient, so that economic inequality is not in itself a denial of liberty. (4) A myth would mean that political liberty is wholly illusory, which is hard to accept when the loss of political liberty (under apartheid, for example) is a grave deprivation.

Assessment. The statement is best understood as a warning, not a literal truth: political liberty is not a myth, but it is hollow for those who lack the means to use it, and it can be captured by wealth. A society that wants liberty to be real must therefore ensure equal opportunity and basic provision, and prevent concentrations of economic power from controlling politics.

Conclusion

Political liberty and economic equality are connected: without a minimum of economic equality, political liberty is formal for many, and in that sense the statement is a fair criticism. It is not a myth in the strict sense, since political freedom matters in itself and is what lets the disadvantaged press for economic change.