Inequality and democracy

This would mean the group was less likely to gain the knowledge and skills in expression that are an advantage in debate. It would also mean it has harder for them to acquire skills in areas such as information technology and marketing that can be an advantage in getting your point of view widely known and discussed. The same relative poverty would mean that the group would be at a disadvantage in acquiring its fair share of prominent persons – such as high-profile business people and relevant experts – who would be more inclined to advance the cause of the group in public debate, or be asked for their opinion by the media. These factors would also make it less likely for the group to be able to get its own elected representatives; both because the comparative lack of (educationally acquired) skills that are an aid to getting elected, and the comparative lack of the financial resources which can also be an aid in that cause. In summary, if the group was significantly poorer than the community as a whole, then, for a variety of reasons, it would be at a disadvantage in trying to get its voice heard in community debate.

What all this means, of course, is if a society contains one or more (linguistic, ethnic, cultural or religious) subgroups that are significantly poorer than the society as a whole, then the level of democracy in that society will be less healthy than it would be with a more equal distribution of wealth. The poorer groups will be less able to get their voice heard on the question of which issues deserve to be discussed by the society as a whole. They will have less influence in "setting the agenda" for public discussion. And they will also be less able to get their favoured solutions receive widespread discussion or a fair hearing. They will be like someone who is allowed to sit at the table, but is unable to speak loud enough to be heard. And so the decisions arrived at in a country in which some groups are very poor – even though they may be the result of voting – will be arrived at by a less democratic process and will have a reduced degree of legitimacy. Conversely, if all subgroups or sub-cultures in a society are more or less equally wealthy, they are more likely to have a (more or less) equal power of being heard, the level of democracy is likely to be healthier, and the decisions arrived at will have a stronger claim to legitimacy. Equality is good for the health of democracy, and for the legitimacy of the decisions arrived at by any democratic process.

There are two things that it is perhaps especially important to note here.

It is not unusual for the claim to be made that securing economic growth ought to be a government's first priority. Redistribution of wealth, if it is to occur, at all, ought to take place only after wealth has been created. But on the view defended here, this gets things the wrong way around. There must already be a healthy level of equality in a society if any decision (including the decision to maximise growth) is to be democratically legitimated. So, it is inappropriate on this view for taxation-funded government spending designed to help the poor to be postponed until "wealth has been created".

There is one thing that is especially important in ensuring minority groups have effective input in to public debate - and that is education. Education gives the knowledge required to participate, the skills in expression and argumentation required to persuade, as well as the financial means to more effectively be heard. So: implementing the Gonski recommendations ought to be a priority.

Finally, there is a reason why any government - no matter what its political persuasion - ought to be wary of allowing any group to disproportionately influence public discussion to its own advantage. In our society the way we decide one government is bad and needs to be replaced by another is by free, critical discussion and then voting. But if the process of discussion is itself corrupted or excessively controlled, then it may become that much harder to replace bad governments and replace them with better ones. It might be fairly easy to slide down a slippery slope in the direction of plutocracy, but far harder to climb back up again.