Social and Economic Inequality
Social inequity is an issue in almost every corner of the world. It often plays a huge role in the success of candidates in different elections and remains one of the most talked-about political issues. In some contexts, we separate social inequity and politics in an attempt to simplify the causes and outcomes of both. However, the two seem far too interrelated to be completely separated—at least if one wants to make a fair and complete analysis of either one.
In Democracy in Latin America, Smith and Sells discuss this issue specifically in the context of Latin America, noting, “For a complex variety of (strongly debated) reasons, Latin America has exhibited the most unequal distribution of income (and wealth) in the entire world”. Simon Kuznets makes the argument that inequality is an important stage in economic development, which might be true, but fails to explain why this is a persisting issue in Latin America and has been for hundreds of years.
We are all well-aware of the issue of land-owning elite, the military and politicians and the overwhelming (and disproportionate) amount of power that they seem to hold throughout the region. In order for the wealth to even out and the power to be re-distributed, these elites would have to stop exploiting and capitalizing on the working class in order to get wealthier, which is not a likely change.
It would be ideal to say that democracy could fix this massive gap between classes, right? What if we could count on free and fair elections to guarantee representation for all people, regardless of socioeconomic status? Though it sounds simple, it has proven to be far more complex than this. Whether or not democracy does anything to close the inequity gap in Latin American remains inconclusive. So, what can solve this? Is there some sort of guaranteed solution?
If we are speaking in terms of making FAST and EFFECTIVE social changes, we could come to the conclusion that an authoritarian regime (if aimed in the right direction with good intentions and a clearly outlined goal of helping the working class) might be more useful. Hear me out, because I know this sounds anti-democratic (i.e anti- “the people” in the U.S). Imagine a charismatic leader, kind and confident, one that speaks directly to the working class and even reaches out to them beyond propaganda-motivated meetings (Are you picturing Eva Perón in Argentina, late 1940’s? Me too.). This (imaginary) leader could then, without much opposition, focus specifically on social programs to help in the advancement of the lower class. They could improve education, implement better health care, increase minimum wage, etc. In a democracy these things are certainly doable, but may take a little (lot) longer because of the potential for opposition in congress and from other leaders. However, as great as it all sounds, the likelihood of an authoritarian leader being pro-working class is pretty slim considering the ways in which they typically come to power.
Another important detail to mention is that poverty reduction and inequality reduction are not synonymous or interchangeable. There have been accounts of rapid economic growth, resulting in the reduction of poverty (Ex. Chile). Although exciting and positive, this did not equal change in the gap between the rich and the poor, as the rich were still earning far more and the increase in wealth happened for them as well as for those living in poverty. This complicates things, because advancing the economy does not mean advancing the poor, and the focus must be aimed at more than just economic growth. This is where social policy comes into play. In order to lessen the gap of inequality, countries need to focus on a number of other aspects. These include but are not limited to healthcare, education reform and social security.
We cannot come to one cookie-cutter conclusion for how to change the social and economic inequality in Latin America. Different things have proven to work, but never long-term. Is it possible that modeling after the rest of the world may not actually be in the best interest of Latin America? Could democracy be hindering social change in some ways?