How poverty is a threat to democracy? Describe in brief
Answers
Explanation:
Democracy takes many forms – some are Western liberal democracies, others are Asian authoritarian democracies. What all of these democratic forms have in common, however, is an element of collective decision-making wherein all citizens can equally participate[1]. Some believe that democratic ideals of civil liberty and equality are inherently valuable, while others believe that democracies produce benefits like good political decisions and increased civic participation. While democracies mechanisms and outcomes seem to engage the whole population, a group seems to be left out of these mechanisms and benefits, namely those in poverty. While there is no uniform dollar value to poverty universally, in general, those in poverty lack the economic resources to achieve a minimum standard of living[2]. It can be due to the fact that individuals lack the economic ability to work, or that the economy has oversupply of labor such that some people cannot find work, or that in cases whether individuals can and do work, they remain insufficiently paid for a multitude of reasons. I argue today that poverty is a threat to democracy in two ways – first, it destroys the equality necessary for democratic participation, second, it incapacitates the poor from meaningfully participating in collective decision-making.
First, poverty destroys the equality necessary for democratic participation in three ways – one, it makes the poor more likely to give up their vote in exchange for respite from poverty; two, it allows the wealthy – due to the income inequality – to buy excessive influence; three, poor people are unable to access institutions to remedy inequality.
One, poverty makes the poor more likely to give up their vote in exchange for respite from poverty. When one is poor, one is constantly seeking to alleviate the poverty one is embedded in. This social hunger presents an opportunity for opportunistic parties to strike a deal of acquisition of poor people’s political freedoms. They offer monetary respite or an uplifting in standard of living in exchange for a vote. Poor people are highly likely to strike this deal because the alternative of living below the poverty line is too inhumane to be a viable alternative. As such, politicians can buy votes of the poor.
This happens in multiple ways – it could be the more corrupt and literal buying of votes where poor people are approached and offered money in exchange for their promise to vote for certain politicians. This is clearly illegal and frowned upon. However, it could also be the more insidious and figurative “buying” of votes where politicians make short-term materialistic promises to poor in exchange for their vote. While this seems reasonable and common in political campaigns, the greater fear is that the politicians dangle these short-term benefits in exchange for permission to make decisions that may be more detrimental to society in the long run. Furthermore, the reverse could also work, where politicians threaten the withholding of benefits should citizens not vote for them. An economically well-adjusted population might find this annoying but a poor population would find this damaging and ultimately be held hostage by such threats because they have no viable alternative of privately paying for services.
HOP IT HELPS. MY ANSWER IS TOO BRIEFLY