Kaufman: Awfully Convenient for Those in Power
In “The Political Effects of Inequality in Latin America: Some Inconvenient Facts,” author Robert Kaufman sets out to explain the reasons behind the persistence of inequality in Latin American by connecting the voting patterns of those in poverty with the immovability of current political systems, systems that Kaufman states remain in place as a consequence of the ineffective participation of those who benefit least from them.
Though not explicitly, Kaufman’s assertions attempt to refute Huber and Solt’s claims of increases in liberalization being positively correlated with increased inequality. While Kaufman’s report contains messages I expressly disagree with, I would like to take my expression of discontent a step further and maintain that social and economic inequity is the ultimate scourge of democracy worldwide.
As demonstrated by last November’s presidential election here in the United States, electoral officials are keenly aware of divisions among their own populations. Though it can be said that many run with the express goal of diminishing these gaps, I believe that the opposite is also true: that a fair number of candidates aim to take advantage of inequality, manipulating it to fit their needs and magnifying pre-existing instability.
While Kaufman seriously implies that the underserved and underprivileged do little to help their own situation by participating self-servingly in the electoral process, I hold that this explanation oversimplifies a history of institutional oppression and nigh erases a severe dearth of attractive options within the established political framework. Kaufman’s message may appeal to those wishing to pass the torch of guilt from the beneficiaries of a grossly unjust system to those upon which it is built, but that ideology is one I cannot in good conscience condone.
This is an interesting response to the article. I do believe as well that the main point of Kaufman’s was to point out that the motivation of voters are in fact positively correlated to their political behaviors. It seemed to me that he was trying to say how there is in fact some underlying motivation that drives people towards their political behavior, and this behavior is not simply built on their demographics or party affiliation for example. I do think it may be difficult to provide a general sweeping statement whether or not party affiliation per se affects an individual’s willingness to participate, and that it may actually be based more on the setting and underlying motivations.
I also agree with Leah’s point that the larger statement from the Kaufman piece provides structure and rationality to seemingly “irrational” political behavior.
I thought you brought up a valid point regarding how Kaufman’s argument tends to be oversimplifying. However, I think Leah also defends Kaufman’s intentions in that he is merely truing to connect demographic reasoning with electoral choices. While Kaufman may argue that disenfranchised sectors of the population make ‘ineffective choices,’ perhaps a more accurate argument is that politicians don’t deliver on their promises because the poor are unable to hold them accountable in a skewed system.