Political Equality

When Abraham Lincoln delivered his famous Gettysburg address on 19 November 1863 in the thick of the American civil war, he expressed his anguish and pain, apprehending whether the nation could endure such a long such a civil war. Optimistically, he ended his address saying a few words that have come to be closely identified as the principle of democracy and political equality. He said ‘that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people’, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from earth.’³⁰ The ‘government of the people’, by the people and for the people’, suggests that citizens constitute the government and government exists for them. It implies principle of political equality. However, if Leslie Lipson (The Great Issues of Politics) has to be believed, ‘normally and customarily the many have been governed by the few for the benefit of the few’. Political equality is an ideal to be pursued if a government has to be based on equality of political rights of the citizens and is representative of people’s aspirations.

Political equality generally means two things: (i) equality in terms of political relations as citizens having equal political rights irrespective of birth, caste, gender, religion, gender, etc.; and (ii) equal distribution of political power and influence. In the first, we do not seek political equality as father and son, or doctor and patient but as two citizens. This necessarily involves concept of citizens having equal political rights and equal political rights become the basis of political equality. In the second, a democratic government is envisaged. Political equality includes:

• Equality of voting rights—’one person, one vote’ and extension of suffrage to all eligible citizens irrespective of their social, economic, gender and other affiliations—universal suffrage.
• Equality in terms of forming political associations and expressing political views.
• Equal rights to get represented.
• Equality in contesting elections and holding public offices (of course, there can be positive discrimination in favour of underprivileged to compensate for previous deprivations such reservation of seats for women in Panchayati Raj Institutions in India).
• No special privilege to a few to rule, e.g. democratic government.

It is understood that demand for legal equality was followed by demand for political equality or the two emerged simultaneously. R. D. Raphael, for example, has suggested that demand for equality during the French Revolution was also for ‘removal of arbitrary privileges, such as that which confined political equality to the rich and the well-born.’³¹ R. H. Tawney (Equality) and Ernest Barker (Principles of Social and Political Theory), amongst others, suggest that demand for legal equality preceded political equality. Historically, Greeks and Romans though may not have the idea of citizenship that we understand at present, people were equally participative in political life. Barring, slaves Greeks enjoyed civic freedom for political participation. All Greeks, except slaves, were equal participants in the matters of the city-states. During the Roman period, participation and representation from the three elements of the Roman society—’the monarchical element, the aristocratic element (patricians) and the democratic element (plebeians), were embodied in the Consuls, Senate and the Tribunes’.³² During the medieval period, there was no concept of political equality as feudalism was based on status and privileges. Further, political equality could not be expected when divine rights of kings to rule were invoked.

Development of the concept of political equality in modern times has been influenced by many factors:

• Firstly, during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the English, the American and the French Revolutions contributed to the development of the concept of political equality by espousing equality of rights of individuals. In this, the natural rights doctrine also played important role as it talked about equality of rights;
• Secondly, the social contract theory by assuming equality of all to enter into contract, as Locke said, to institute a government as a trust, contained the seed of the concept of political equality. It discredited the divine rights doctrine, which used to invoke hereditary right to rule;
• Thirdly, emergence of democracy as a form of government provided an over all sense of political equality. Alex de Tocqueville, in his book, Democracy in America observed about the consequences of democracy. He says, ‘its (democracy) main tendency was to produce social equality’,³³ social equality in terms of abolition of hereditary distinctions of ranks, privileges etc. Political rights and privileges were also based on social privileges and demand for social equality implicitly contained the seed of political equality as well;
• Fourthly, the concept of citizenship provides the basis for political equality. While legal equality means equality of individuals as juristic personality, political equality means equality of individuals as citizens. A citizen is a politically determined individual who possesses political rights. A layman or laywoman may pronounce that he or she is not interested in politics, interpreting politics in terms of pettifogging and skulduggery or alleged manipulation by politicians or corruption. However, for a student of political studies it is intriguing to reconcile how can one be disinterested in politics and be a citizen? Some may say that this is a puritanical view of citizenship and to enjoy political rights one need not be interested in politics. To say the least, the latter view is at best a view of citizenship with political apathy. One cannot be a member of the political society or modern nation-state without being a citizen of that nation-state. By virtue of being a citizen, one enjoys equal political rights. To be a citizen with equal political rights, one should be a politically motivated citizen. To be a politically motivated citizen is not only equal to indulging in politics as we understand, but to even be sensitive to one’s voting rights, choosing the leader consciously through whom one is represented in the legislature, being participative in the public issues, etc.

Concept of universal citizenship is a modern democratic concept. However, selective endowment of political affiliation upon inhabitants had been witnessed in empires and sultanates also. In AD 212, Roman Emperor, Caracalla conferred Roman citizenship on all non-slave or free inhabitants of the empire. However, in a few sultanates and kingdoms ruled by Muslim rulers, people belonging to religions other than the religion of the ruler had to pay a compulsory toll tax called Jaziya. Those inhabitants who professed religion other than that of the emperor or the king paid this tax to maintain political affiliation with the state. However, this practice was based on political inequality of inhabitants on the consideration of different religions. Hitler stands out as a rare example who, in 1935, deprived the Jews of German citizenship. In short, universal citizenship as a modern democratic concept is manifestation of political equality.

While, factors such as doctrine of individual and natural rights, democracy, citizenship, etc. led to demand for equality, this demand has been raised in phases by different sections of society. Three phases or waves of demands for political equality could be identified. Firstly, in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries the rising capitalist class made demands for political equality. They sought political equality with the entrenched aristocratic class and the nobility. For example, the Reform Act, which was introduced by Lord John Russell in 1831 in the British Parliament and passed in 1832, resulted in redistribution of the existing parliamentary seats to give representation to new urban areas, which developed through the industrial changes. C. F. Strong is of the view that ‘in doing this it enfranchised the new capitalists.’³⁴ However, politically, equality early on was not political equality for all. There were certain property and even religious conditions for voting rights and office holding.³⁵ Secondly, the capitalist and industrial economy also produced a large working class, though without political rights. If this sounds cliche, let us see what Chartism stood for. In England, between 1837–48, the working class led a movement for social and political reforms known as Chartism based on People’s Charter. This aimed at securing improvements not only in living and educational conditions of the working class but also adult suffrage and franchise reforms, payment for Members of Parliament, equal electoral districts and voting by ballot.³⁶ However, it was through Reform Acts of 1867 and 1884 in England that lodgers in the towns and agricultural labourers were enfranchised.³⁷ The second wave of political equality relates to extension of voting and other political rights to the industrial working class and the agricultural labourers. Thirdly, political equality could not become a reality for women even until the dawn of the twentieth century. Adult franchise could be extended to women in Britain only during the First World War. In fact, the focus of the feminist movement during the mid-ninteenth century had been emergence of women’s suffrage movement.³⁸ Elizabeth Cady Stanton, an anti-slavery and women rights activist had organized a women’s rights convention in July 1848 in New York. The convention declared equality of men and women and demanded the right to vote, property rights and right to higher education and church offices.³⁹ Elizabeth declared that ‘the voice of women has been silenced in the state, the church, and the home …’ In the first half of the twentieth century, female suffrage was achieved in most Western countries. Thus, we can say that in practice political equality emerged in three phases.

Theorists, who uphold the elitist view of democracy, criticize the assumption of political equality that political power or influence should be equally distributed. Pareto, Mosca and Michels have shown political power as generally shared by elites and criticized the assumptions of equal dispersal of political power to masses/people. In the first half of the twentieth century, Schumpeter had shown that democracy is not about the rule of the people and in second half of the twentieth century, Robert Dahl in his books, Who Governs? and Polyarchy showed that democracy is nothing but elite rule. Harold Lasswell and Abraham Kaplan in their book, Power and Society have argued that power is never distributed equally. They say ‘if political equality were defined so as to exclude the existence of an elite, the concept would be vacuus.’⁴⁰ It is also alleged that in a democracy even consent and opinion is manufactured, as Schumpeter says. As per the elitist view, political equality in terms of dispersal of power could at most be achieved as circulation of elite and democracy as periodic elections for choosing from amongst the competing elites.

Most of Western countries under the liberal–capitalist system passing through the three phases or waves of demands for political equality (for bourgeoisie, working class and women) achieved universal suffrage, democratic governments, open public office, etc. by the first half of the twentieth century. However, for two groups of countries such as those, which came under socialist or communist rule and those, which were under colonial domination, political equality had different interpretations. In socialist countries, political equality was automatically assumed due to economic equality and more so due to the affiliation of each to the communist party. Here, political equality was not envisaged due to their citizenship but due to their being comrade and member of the communist party. The dictatorship of the proletariat cannot provide political equality to all, necessarily not to the remnants of the bourgeois past, ‘capitalist roaders’ and reactionaries. Question of political equality is also problematic in colonial relations. For example, Indians did not enjoy equality of political rights vis-á-vis, the British rulers. It was only in the twentieth century, some concessions were granted to Indians with respect to political equality. Indians were not citizens but subjects of the British Empire, they had no voting rights and later, when granted, these were limited. There was no democratic rule or dispersal of power. As such, colonial rule was not conducive to the conception of political equality. In fact, if we can recall, the slogan raised during the American independence war that no taxation without representation, was also a slogan for achieving political equality. In India, the demand for Swaraj was also a demand for political equality. In short, we can say that the conception of political equality has its limitations in colonial relations. After independence, the Constitution of India provides for universal adult suffrage, freedom to contest and hold public office or get represented, democratically elected governments,

The conception of political equality is important, as it is a condition for successful operation of a democracy. By putting equal worth—’one person one vote’, in each citizen, it helps in the operation of the concept of political majority and political minority. However, in certain conditions, adoption of a separate electorate, which gives dual voting rights, e.g. as a general citizen and as a member of a particular community, the concept of political equality is compromised. It is also argued that political equality in itself is not a sufficient condition of dispersal of political power unless socio-economic equality is also achieved.