Ideally, in a functioning democracy, widening income inequality would be corrected and addressed through the ballot box. If a nation’s wealth gets increasingly concentrated into the hands of a few, there is an assumption that the lower and middle classes could use their numbers to elect candidates who advocate egalitarian policies and work for the redistribution of upper-class wealth.
Such theory is widely held, almost considered canon even, among economists and political analysts. But as a July 2018 The Economist article suggests, the opposite appears to be the reality—as inequality grows, so does the political influence of the rich.
A recent study of nine European countries between 1941 and 2014 showed that the more income inequality widened, the more legislative agendas narrowed on issues like law enforcement, immigration and national defense—and migrated away from topics like social safety nets (education, health care, welfare and housing) that counter economic inequality. As the authors put it, “As income in Europe [became] more stratified, government agendas
[became] more myopic.”
Meanwhile, in 2014, Princeton and Northwestern University researchers studied US public opinion polls conducted between 1981 and 2002 on over 2,000 policy issues. They then cross-referenced whether or not the federal government adopted the policy preferences of the public.
For the most part, “average” voters got what they wanted from their government, giving the impression that democracy and representation in the United States were functioning well. But when it came to policy issues where the views of average voters diverged from economic elites, the former lost substantial influence over the outcome, while the latter appeared to have maintained their sway over the political process.
To be clear, it’s not entirely new to say that even in well-functioning democracies, wealth, political influence and power often coincide. What’s noteworthy about these recent studies is the suggestion that widening income inequality can actually create a negative feedback loop that draws attention away from the problem—thereby keeping the “haves” well ahead of the “have-nots.”
Ultimately, this could only have detrimental effects on the political system, as politicians become less accountable to their constituents, which then diminishes the quality of representation and hence the level of trust citizens have in their government.
Does this apply to the Philippines?
Established indices like Freedom House have described the country as “partly free” on numerous occasions. According to the 2018 Bertelsmann-Stiftung Transformation Index, which analyzes and evaluates social change in developing countries, the democratic and economic transformation of the Philippines is severely hindered “by the oligarchic structures of both the political and economic system.” These only underscore the need for political reforms, alongside our efforts to build a more inclusive, more broad-based economy.
Among the top political issues grabbing the headlines is Charter change and the transition to federalism. But attention should also be devoted to other matters, such as the passage of an anti-political dynasty bill, the introduction of discounts for political advertisements, the development of a true political party system and even the passage of a freedom of information law, institutionalizing President Duterte’s first executive order. In short, action should also take place on all other reforms that specifically enhance the accountability of our institutions and how well they represent the will of the people.
In 2016 University of the Philippines Diliman Associate Professor Aries A. Arugay wrote that, if left unchecked, our democracy’s deficiencies—namely “dynastic politics, costly elections, clientelism, weak political parties and the absence of meaningful public participation”—could only worsen into a full-blown crisis of representation in the Philippines. Clearly, steps should be made to prevent this from happening.
It’s only fitting to remember what President Manuel L. Quezon said on the anniversary of the Philippine Commonwealth: “The task of our government is not only to protect the right of those who have, to the proper use and enjoyment of their property, but also to demand that those who have not received the fruits of their labor in its integrity, should have, sufficient for their needs and those of their dependents.”
****
Sen. Sonny Angara was elected in 2013, and is now the chairman of the Senate committees on local government, and ways and means.
E-mail: sensonnyangara@yahoo.com| Facebook, Twitter and Instagram: @sonnyangara.