http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010\10\16\story_16-10-2010_pg3_2
Saturday, October 16, 2010 VIEW: Defending equality -Sikander Amani In Pakistan the arguments (if they even deserve to be called arguments) for not moving towards greater equality range from tradition, nature, religion and anti-western sentiments, to the sheer cynicism of maintaining a status quo favourable to the richer, more feudal layers of society Although equality intuitively seems to be central to any concept of justice, no one quite appears to agree on what it should cover. "People who praise it or disparage it disagree about what they are praising or disparaging," writes philosopher Dworkin. When the French decided on their famous slogan 'Liberty, Equality, Fraternity', it is often jokingly said that they added fraternity (brotherhood) as a way to patch up the irremediable divorce between liberty and equality. Yet, what exactly do we mean by equality? What kind of equality, for whom and when, are we prepared to defend? The moral principle of equality of dignity of all human beings seems to be the lowest common denominator that all, even defenders of social or political inequality, agree on. Beyond mere moral equality, people would also often agree on formal equality before the law. In Aristotle's pithy words: "Treat like cases as like." We should treat persons as equals, that is, with similar concern and respect. But, one of the core problems is of course the concrete interpretation of what it means to treat persons as equals, or with equal respect. In particular, how far should we go with distributive justice? Is equality of opportunity enough, or is it not too often an empty word to cover up for our selfish disinterest - 'oh, they have had their chance...'? Well, have they really? While complete egalitarianism seems neither feasible nor even desirable, should we not strive for some equality of basic life conditions, and hence of some resources? There is no question that nature is unjust, and that we are not born equal. But herein lies precisely the beauty of human organisation: it is about creating an equality where nature is only about violence and power relations. On the other hand, the question may also be legitimately asked as to whether an inequality may be just. Some libertarians would argue that inequality is not a problem in itself, and equality is not an intrinsic value. What matters is that the absolute poorest can still get by. Equality, they say, is a relative term, whereas what matters is the absolute position of one's situation, irrespective of others. Whether some are richer than others does not actually matter. Of course, the issue is essentially academic and theoretical in Pakistan, which ranks among the most unequal countries in the world and with depressingly little or no political will to change the situation (and here, as often, inequality disproportionately affects women and minorities). Unsurprisingly, the arguments (if they even deserve to be called arguments) for not moving towards greater equality range from tradition, nature, religion and anti-western sentiments, to the sheer cynicism of maintaining a status quo favourable to the richer, more feudal layers of society. Why bring about greater equality of conditions, which will only lead to greater demands? As Tocqueville shrewdly noted, the more equal we are, the more unbearable any slightest inequality becomes. Let us not hurry to cave in to the demands of equality, lest the people actually start demanding proper implementation of other human rights. An interesting, and rather delightfully ironic twist in the equality discussion is the fact, explored both theoretically and empirically, that inequality is harmful not just to the poor but also to the rich. John Rawls, in his famous A Theory of Justice, had already laid the theoretical foundations of the position that it is in the interest of the wealthy to bridge the inequality gap. According to him, while some economic and social inequality may be acceptable, too wide a gap is against the interests of the better off, as they will not be able to count on the cooperation of the less well off, whose collaboration they need in the general social and economic system. In the worst case scenario, inequality would even trigger a French-style revolution - definitely not good for the rich, whose heads might roll. But a recent study has backed this theoretical position with empirical facts. In their book, The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better, scholars Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett show that it is not just the poor, but whole societies, from top to bottom, that are adversely affected by inequality. Their analysis deliberately focuses only on rich western countries, in order to eliminate the gross national product as a factor. The results are sobering: across all the western democracies, and across a wide range of indicators, the authors show a consistent pattern in which outcomes across the social spectrum get much worse as levels of inequality increase. This is true of rates of infant mortality, illiteracy, obesity, mental illness, incarceration, drug use, violence and homicide in particular. Indeed, as inequality rises, so does violence - drastically. Of all crimes, those involving violence are most closely related to a high level of inequality. This is true not only between western countries, but also within them. For example, if we compare the 50 states of the US, these indicators are worse in states with greater inequality. In short, inequality causes shorter, nastier, unhealthier and unhappier lives - not just among the poor, but among the rich too. This is an intellectually very pleasing result: that inequality is not good for the rich either, and hence, that it is entirely in their interest to advocate inequality reduction and a fairer distribution. Basically, greater equality is in the interest of everyone. It seems high time that Pakistani politicians heeded this deep lesson. The writer is a freelance columnist and can be reached at [email protected] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------------------ Post message: [email protected] Subscribe : [email protected] Unsubscribe : [email protected] List owner : [email protected] Homepage : http://proletar.8m.com/Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/proletar/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/proletar/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: [email protected] [email protected] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [email protected] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
