Meaning of Equality

Our survey above helps us: (i) differentiate between equality and other similar concepts such as equity or identity of treatment, proportion or balance, uniformity, etc. (ii) make a distinction between formal, procedural and substantive equality; and (iii) locate different dimensions of equality such as civil, economic, gender, legal, natural, political, racial, social, etc. Equality is an important political ideal that has been used to determine how rights, liberties and various publicly available resources such as welfare and social benefits would be distributed amongst the people. Equality is principle of such a distribution, both for individuals and groups. However, equality does not mean merely equity or uniformity of treatment or similarity in appearance or being identical. Both Laski and Tawney recognized complexity of the issue involved in defining equality in a precise manner, as it contains more than one meaning. Rousseau’s differentiation between natural and conventional inequalities meant that certain forms of inequalities are beyond human regulation but some others are a creation of civil society. Equality has been demanded at different stages of history involving a variety of justifications. Stoics argued for natural equality of human beings; Spartacus raised a voiced for equality based on colour of blood; equality of birth has been argued for seeking parity with those who claimed superior birth; anti-slavery, anti-apartheid, anti-untouchability movements invoked the criteria of human dignity; the socialist and communist movements demanded ownership of means of production as measure of equality; and in contemporary times, we have active demand for gender equality irrespective of naturally and biologically conditioned differences.

There can be differences in the emphasis on the ideal of equality. This could be due to the socio-political and economic organization. For example, in a liberal-capitalist society, equality would mean equality before law and at most equality of opportunity. It concentrates more on equity in the sense of fairness of action and procedures, chances and opportunity. It is not concerned with equality of outcomes or results but only equality of opportunity. R. H. Tawney was critical of the concept of equality of opportunity and termed it as ‘tadpole philosophy’. According to this, ‘all may start out from the same position but then left to the vagaries of the market; some will succeed but many will fail.’²⁵ Slightly different from the equity-based idea of equality could be welfare-based arguments. Welfare state would generally address the issues related to redistribution of not only initial chances but also the outcome or results. It is observed that equality of initial conditions or a fair play or level playing field in the beginning, may also lead to inequality of results. A welfare state seeks to take care of those who are left behind due to variety of factors such as the operation of free and private players, difference in skills and talent or may be physical and mental challenges. A welfare state seeks to employ equality of outcome arguments or at least redistributive arguments to avoid extreme inequality of results. On the other hand, in a socialist society, social ownership of means of production seeks to remove economic inequality by the means of social ownership of resources, chances and offices. Here, equality is not sought as a matter of procedure and opportunities, but by social ownership of means of production. However, some may argue that socialist countries seek economic equality at the cost of other ideals or principles such as political rights, civic freedoms, etc.

Within the liberal fold, there is a pluralist position, which argues for autonomy of and equality amongst various groups, the State not being an exception. It argues for group autonomy and accordingly for recognition of individuals as members of these autonomous groups. This means individuals affiliated to different organizations, associations and groups could be treated differently if parity amongst various groups is to be maintained. For example, an individual as a mosque or temple or church-goer requires different rights and liberty than he or she requires as a lawyer, doctor or as painter or dancer. For a pluralist, State and other social, religious, political, cultural and professional associations should be treated at par for the purpose of their control and regulation over individuals. Another school supporting the multicultural perspective argues that there may not be need for the State to relate to all its citizens based on equality of treatment. This is because, it argues, to bring individuals belonging to or having affiliations with different cultural, social and religious backgrounds into the mainstream of political and social processes and the public domain, all must be treated as having different identities.

An important consideration for the concept of equality in modern times has been treating individuals as citizens in a democratic set-up. The State and public authority treats individuals as equals and applies all laws and rules of the state equally to them. Extension of franchise to all eligible adult citizens, application of rule of law to all, equality before law, equality of opportunity to all eligible candidates in the field of education, employment and holding public offices, absence of discrimination based on any socio-cultural identity in public places, etc. are a result of individuals identified as citizens and not as particular X, Y, Z. However, this does not exclude exceptions based on socio-cultural considerations. The basic thread of individual–state relationship is defined in terms of equality-based conception of citizenship.

Given different meanings attached to the concept of equality, it is difficult to define it precisely. Laski treats equality as a means to bring parity amongst the citizens so that no one’s basic rights as citizens are denied. He says, ‘It (equality) means that my realization of my best-self must involve as its logical result the realization of others of their best selves.’ Laski speaks in terms of equality of conditions that citizens should enjoy for their self-realization. The same concern Rousseau also had voiced when he said that ‘no citizen shall be rich enough to buy another and none so poor as to be forced to sell himself’. In a utilitarian context Bentham’s idea, that ‘every one is to count as one and nobody as more than one’ in deciding the worth of each and happiness of the greatest number, relates to equality amongst individuals. Equality is a conception, ideal or principle in political theory that also helps us decide how the relationship of each individual is to be defined in terms of the sharing of resources—economic and material, rights, or happiness. These resources are vital for either self-realization or human dignity or what Amartya Sen would call, ‘expansion of freedom’. This may involve equality before law, equal protection of law, equality of opportunity, equality of outcome, positive discrimination for ensuring parity, etc. Equality also means absence of special privileges to few.

R. H. Tawney holds that equality and liberty are compatible and argues that equality requires that liberty of others should be regulated because ‘freedom for the pike is death for the minnows.’ In this sense, equality means coordinated freedom for all and not complete freedom to few and absence of it to others. Tawney also echoes the view of Rousseau and Laski that equality means absence of extremes of capacity and incapacity.

To clarify the meaning assigned to equality as a concept, we may summarize the characteristics of equality as follows:

• Equality can be understood in positive as well as in negative sense: In a positive sense, equality means presence of enabling conditions, opportunities, and benefits that help equal enjoyment of rights by all. While equality in a positive sense envisages legal, political, economic and civil equality and the welfare state, equality in negative sense requires primacy of democratic values and social equality. Harold Joseph Laski, considering equality in negative and positive sense, describes equality as involving:²⁶
  1. End of special privileges
  2. Absence of social and economic exploitation
  3. Adequate opportunities open to all
  4. Equal access to social benefits irrespective of birth and heredity
  While conditions at (a) and (b) above are examples of equality in negative sense, (c) and (d) are examples of equality in positive sense. Equality, as such requires that whatever resources, rights and liberties the state makes available to citizens must be conferred in an equal manner. It does not admit conferring special privilege on some or discriminating against others. In other words, it implies absence of privileges to few and presence of opportunities for all. Further, to ensure that adequate opportunities are available to all including those who are impaired due to lack of material and economic resources or any other disability or incapacity, there could be provision for a level-playing field in the initial period.
• Equality neither means identical/niform treatment nor absolute equality: Equality does not mean absolute equality of each in all aspects. It also does not mean identical treatment to all. In fact, equal treatment of all would be the very negation of the conception of equality. It requires that equals must be treated equally and unequal unequally. Justice requires that those who are unequal should be treated accordingly for the purpose of distribution of rights and public resources. Tawney elucidates this aspects when he says ‘…the sentiment of justice is satisfied, not by offering to everyman identical treatment, but by treating different individuals in the same way insofar as, being human, they have requirements which are same, and in different ways insofar as, being concerned with different services, they have requirements which differ.’²⁷It would result in inequality if, say a person earning one lakh rupees per month and another earning Rs 20,000/- per month are taxed equally. Taxation in India, for example, is aimed at redistributive justice besides being a source of revenue to the government. In short, as Heywood says, for social democrats, equality is understood in terms of distributive equality rather than absolute equality. Generally, in liberal and welfare states, equality is advocated as a goal for equality before law or at the most, equality of opportunity. This means equality in terms of distribution of rights and access to various opportunities. In the Marxian framework, inequality is understood in class terms, which arises from private ownership of means of production. Abolition of private property, class conflict and bourgeois state could be the only basis for achieving meaningful equality. So search for legal, civil and political equality without social ownership of means of production is irrelevant.A related aspect to the idea, that equality is not about being treated in identical or uniform manner, is the distinction between reasonable and unreasonable or morally or functionally acceptable and unacceptable inequality. We should not confuse the issue of equality as a principle of distributive justice with that of functionally useful differentiations and division of labour. There cannot be an argument on the fact that everyone is neither capable nor required to do the same thing nor does one need similar things. What is being insisted here is that despite all differentiations—inequality of merit, skill and talent and division of labour—political and social process in the end should not result in extreme of inequalities. As such, though reasonable distinction and inequality is accepted and in fact would be useful for society, justice requires redistribution to ensure extreme of inequalities do not occur. As history has taught, extreme of inequalities have always propelled revolutions and widespread social cleavages and disturbances.Further, though absolute equality may not be the end, there are certain aspects of social and political life that in fact require concept of absolute equality to be adopted. For example, equality, which aims against racial and caste discriminations, or against gender bias could be pursued in terms of absolute equality.
• Equality as a principle of distributive justice: Equality is generally treated as an important aspect of justice. Further, equality is derived from the principle of rights. This is because if a set of rights have been provided to the citizens, principle of equality requires that they should be distributed in such a way that it does not result in advantage to few at the cost of disadvantage to some others. Equality before the law requires that when law or legislation provides rights or imposes duties, these rights and duties should be equally applicable to all. Unequal application is admitted when it serve the purpose of equality.
• Equality as a derivative value of the development of personality: Equality is thought as a desirable value and is prescriptive in nature. Prescription for treating all human beings equal, for example, comes on various grounds. One of the important grounds invoked is the dignity of human beings. All human beings possess reason and are rational beings. This means they all should be treated equally as far as distribution of rights is concerned. Ernest Barker in his Principles of Social and Political Theory treats equality as a derivative value, which, he says, is derived from the value of the development of personality. Development of personality implies that there is capacity inherent in an individual that needs to be provided with conditions for realization. According to Barker, each person is recognized as a legal personality and each legal personality is treated equal to every other legal personality. Thus, in law all legal persons are to be treated equal. The state seeks to ensure equal condition for making best of oneself by providing legal equality. It seems Barker suggests that by recognizing legal equality, the state in fact provides an equal chance to all individuals as moral persons for their self-realization. However, the outcome may eventually differ because of difference in what we make of ourselves. Barker feels that in a liberal sense, equality as a principle is concerned with equality of opportunity in the beginning and not equality of results. For example, all rights and conditions should be allocated equally, though it may happen that some using these rights and conditions can travel much ahead than others.However, Barker recognizes that legal equality in itself is not sufficient and social and economic inequalities distort realization of equality in a legal sense. He mentions that legal equality has been followed by demand for political and economic equality. Political equality in terms of expansion of suffrage, right to hold public offices, etc. to a wide section of society including women has come true due to the spread of democratic ideals. Economic equality is sought to be achieved through, what Barker says, welfarism. He further opines that the welfarist principle relies on two economic methods to achieve economic equality: one, limiting accumulation of wealth by differential taxation of income, and second, by regulating and raising the wages of poor and workers and public expenditure. However, Barker acknowledges that economic equality in this sense is based on the policy of progressive correction of economic inequality to suit the cause of legal equality. As such, economic equality is not aimed at bring substantive economic redistribution through social ownership of means of production, as the Marxian position seeks.
• Equality as a principle of social engineering and revolutionary change: Historically, demand for equality, either legal or political or economic, has been associated with certain revolutionary changes. The rising capitalist class raised their voice for legal and political equality against the powerful landed and aristocratic elements. The Declaration of Rights of Man as culmination of the French Revolution and its slogan for ‘liberty, equality and fraternity’ declared that ‘Men are born and always continue free and equal in their rights.’ It was the idea of equality—equality of the rising capitalist class with the nobility and aristocracy that propelled the revolution. Similarly, the voice of those who sought economic equality through social ownership of means of production and abolition of class conflict culminated in socialist revolutions. Equal rights to suffrage to women have also resulted in social change. Further, the idea of equality of outcome or equality of results means that the state would be required to interfere in social and political process, without which equality of outcomes would be difficult to achieve. This requires, what some reject as ‘social engineering’.²⁸Many thinkers support liberty and reject the claim of equality as inimical to liberty. Prominent amongst them are Hayek, Friedman, Nozick, etc., and they insist that search for equality of outcomes or results is inimical to liberty. They reject any social engineering for redistribution of resources and wealth that has been produced in a market situation based on individual talents, skills and abilities. On the other hand, positive liberals, advocates of welfare state and social democrats, such as Laski, Tawney, Barker and others support the idea of social engineering for achieving meaningful equality.