Concepts in Political Theory: Equality

Equality is a central concept in political theory, though it is complex and difficult to define precisely. In its broadest sense, equality refers to a relationship between individuals or groups in certain aspects of their lives. As a moral and political ideal, equality suggests that all people possess inherent worth, regardless of their race, gender, nationality, or other characteristics. This implies that everyone should have equal rights and opportunities in society. However, defining what should be equalized—whether it is income, well-being, or access to resources—remains a subject of debate.

The term “equality” is commonly used in everyday language to refer to various comparisons, such as equal prices or quantities. Politically, it has been a foundational ideal in modern democratic movements. For instance, the Declaration of Independence (1776) from the American Revolution famously stated that “all men are created equal,” and the French National Assembly’s Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen (1789) affirmed that “all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.”

In contrast to classical and medieval thinkers, who often accepted hierarchy as natural or inevitable, modern political thought begins with the assumption that all humans have equal moral worth. The debate over equality has since shifted from whether it should be upheld to how it should be applied, particularly in the realm of wealth and income distribution. Some argue for equal distribution of resources as a matter of justice, while others believe that natural differences among people should be reflected in how society treats them. Globally, the rise of equality and social justice has been linked to the development of social welfare systems.

Equality vs Inequality

Equality is a relative concept, especially when considering its meaning in relation to prevailing inequalities in society. Historically, the demand for equality has emerged in response to these inequalities, which are as old as human society itself. Societies have been marked by various forms of inequality, such as those based on class, race, religion, caste, status, power, and gender. The tension between equality as a modern societal ideal and the persistence of practical inequalities is a constant reality in all human communities. As a result, the debate over the nature and causes of inequality has been a long-standing topic in political philosophy.

Aristotle, in his work Politics, identified three social classes and highlighted significant distinctions between citizens and non-citizens, as well as between men and women, based on their perceived rational and civic capacities. Participation in the polis (city-states) was limited to citizens, excluding groups like women and slaves from civic life.

In Hindu society, the caste system divided people into four varnas—Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya, and Shudra—determining their rights and duties based on this classification. Similarly, in medieval societies, legal privileges were determined by status and birth, reinforcing inequality.

The persistence of inequality throughout history has led to the belief that it is inevitable. Prior to the 18th century, many argued that human beings were naturally unequal, supporting the idea of a natural human hierarchy. Various ideologies justified inequality based on race, ancestry, age, sex, religion, military power, culture, wealth, and knowledge.

Sociologist Bryan Turner views inequality as multi-dimensional. He argues that addressing one aspect of inequality often leads to the magnification of other forms of social, political, and cultural disparities, underscoring the complexity of the issue.

Meaning and Definition of Equality

The Oxford English Dictionary defines “equality” in several ways:

The condition of having equal dignity, rank, or privileges as others.
The state of being equal in power, ability, achievement, or excellence.
Fairness, impartiality, and proportionality.

E.F. Carritt explains that “equality” means treating people as equals unless a valid reason, such as need, capacity, or merit, justifies unequal treatment.

Bryan Turner, in his book Equality, provides a comprehensive view of equality relevant to the modern world. He identifies four key aspects:

Fundamental equality of persons.
Equality of opportunity.
Equality of conditions, which involves making life conditions more equal.
Equality of outcomes or results.

Many scholars argue that equality of opportunity refers to ensuring that factors like wealth, birth, or class should not determine a person’s opportunities. Everyone should have equal rights and opportunities to realize their talents, lead fulfilling lives, and develop their personalities.

Harold J. Laski defines equality as equal rights for all and the abolition of special privileges. He elaborates on this concept with the following points:

Equality of rights, where no one has special privileges, and everyone’s will is treated equally.
Equal access to opportunities for all, emphasizing the importance of education in utilizing knowledge and realizing one’s potential.
Universal access to social benefits, with no discrimination based on birth or hereditary status.
The absence of economic and social exploitation.

Barker views equality as a derivative value, linked to the supreme value of personal development. He suggests that equality means that whatever rights or conditions are guaranteed to one individual must be guaranteed to all in the same measure.

Raphael defines the right to equality as the equal satisfaction of basic human needs, including the need to develop and utilize uniquely human capacities.

In summary, equality has both positive and negative aspects. Positively, it involves providing adequate opportunities for all individuals to develop themselves. Negatively, it entails eliminating undue privileges and discrimination based on factors like race, religion, and gender. At its core, equality represents the absence of privilege, equal opportunity, and the assurance of a basic standard of living that enables individuals to achieve excellence in life.

Characteristics of Equality

Equality is the absence of privileges: This means that no individual or group should enjoy special advantages over others based on arbitrary factors like birth, wealth, or status. Equality aims to remove any inherited or socially constructed privileges that place some above others without merit.
Equality implies the presence of equal opportunity for all: Equality ensures that everyone, regardless of their background, has the same chance to pursue their goals and aspirations. This means creating a level playing field where factors like wealth, gender, or race do not hinder a person’s ability to succeed or access resources such as education, jobs, or social services.
Equality guarantees equal rights and freedoms to all: Under equality, everyone is entitled to the same fundamental rights and freedoms. These include civil liberties, political participation, and the right to express oneself. It ensures that laws and social systems protect individuals equally, regardless of differences in personal characteristics.
Equality is equal satisfaction of basic needs: This aspect of equality focuses on ensuring that everyone has access to the resources necessary for a decent standard of living, such as food, shelter, healthcare, and education. It recognizes that meeting basic human needs is essential for individuals to fully participate in society.
Equality advocates equitable distribution of wealth and resources: Equality seeks a fair allocation of wealth, resources, and opportunities, so that disparities between the rich and poor are minimized. This does not necessarily mean everyone receives the same amount, but that wealth is distributed in a way that allows everyone to live with dignity and access essential services.
Equality is the absence of unnatural inequalities: Unnatural inequalities refer to disparities that arise from social constructs like discrimination based on race, gender, or class. Equality aims to eliminate these unjust disparities, ensuring that no one is unfairly disadvantaged due to arbitrary characteristics or social biases.
Equality does not stand for absolute equality: This means that equality does not aim to make everyone the same in every aspect of life. Differences in talent, effort, and choice will naturally lead to some variations in outcomes. Instead, equality focuses on providing fair opportunities, rights, and access to resources, while accepting that some differences in individual outcomes are inevitable.

The concept of equality as outlined here recognizes that while complete uniformity among individuals is neither possible nor desirable, society should work to remove arbitrary or unjust advantages and ensure that everyone has the same opportunities, rights, and access to basic needs. Equality seeks to balance fairness with diversity by advocating for equitable systems that promote dignity and well-being for all members of society, while still acknowledging individual differences.

Different Dimensions of the Equality

Equality is a highly complex concept, there being as many forms of equality as there are ways of comparing the conditions of human existence.

Natural Equality

Natural equality implies that all individuals are inherently equal by nature. Liberty and equality are two of the most fundamental rights of the people and form the foundation of democracy. Ancient philosophers like Plato and Aristotle believed that all men were naturally equal. In modern times, Rousseau argued that the civilizing process corrupts the moral virtue of humanity, while Karl Marx advocated for equal treatment of every individual in society. The French Declaration of Rights proclaimed that “men are born and remain free and equal in rights.” Similarly, the Preamble to the Indian Constitution enshrines Equality as one of its four core objectives, alongside Justice, Liberty, and Fraternity.

Although individuals may differ in physical characteristics, psychological traits, and mental abilities, all humans should be treated as equals. Every person is deserving of the full range of human rights and freedoms, regardless of these differences.

Social equality plays a crucial role in human social existence. It signifies that the rights of all citizens should be equal within society, ensuring that every individual is treated equally under the law. Equality demands that everyone has access to the same opportunities, without discrimination based on factors such as color, caste, creed, gender, status, or wealth. As Harold J. Laski aptly states, “There are certain essentials of life that must be available to all, regardless of distinctions. I have no right to enjoy luxuries if my neighbor is deprived of basic necessities.” Educational institutions that provide equal access to schooling and higher education promote social mobility and help foster social equality.

Political Equality

Political equality refers to granting equal citizenship to all members of a society, whether in a state or country. This equal citizenship provides everyone with fundamental rights, such as the right to vote, freedom of expression, movement, association, and belief. Political equality ensures that all citizens, regardless of their differences, have an equal say in public affairs and the opportunity to hold office. It involves active political participation, where every citizen’s opinion and voice are equally represented in the political process. As Harold J. Laski puts it, “Political equality means that those who wield power must be governed by the principles of democratic governance.”

Economic Equality

Economic equality refers to ensuring fairness in the economic status and opportunities of all citizens. It is essential not only for improving the condition of poorer classes but also for maintaining a stable society. Economic equality suggests that national wealth should be distributed in a way that prevents any individual or group from becoming excessively powerful. It opposes the concentration of economic power in the hands of a few and advocates for equal access to employment opportunities, enabling everyone to meet their basic needs.

The principle of economic equality seeks to create fair and adequate opportunities for all to work and earn a living, minimizing the gap between rich and poor. This involves the equitable distribution of wealth and resources within society. Early liberals defined economic equality as the freedom to choose one’s trade or profession, regardless of caste, creed, or economic status, and emphasized equality in contractual obligations.

However, rapid industrialization brought an awareness that legal equality alone cannot achieve equality of opportunity. It requires addressing economic disparities and ensuring that everyone, especially the economically disadvantaged, has the ability to develop their potential. According to R.H. Tawney, equality of opportunity depends not just on the absence of barriers but also on the availability of resources that enable individuals to fully utilize their abilities. True equality means reducing extreme inequalities in wealth and income to ensure the equal satisfaction of basic human needs.

Economic equality can be understood in two ways:

As a matter of status, where individuals are treated equally in terms of social standing.
As a matter of property and income, where efforts are made to reduce disparities in wealth and income, ensuring a more balanced distribution of resources across society.

Legal Equality

Legal equality means that all individuals are treated equally under the law. It ensures equal protection of each person’s life and equal penalties for those who violate the law. This concept emphasizes that everyone, regardless of their status, should be subject to the same legal code and have equal access to legal protection for their rights and freedoms. The rule of law must apply equally to all members of society.

Legal equality can be understood in two key ways:

Equality before the Law: This principle asserts that all individuals are subject to the ordinary laws of the land, administered by ordinary courts. It demands that the law treat everyone equally—rich or poor, powerful or humble—and that “like should be treated alike.” It implies that everyone has the same rights and duties under the law, with equal penalties for violations. However, the law also recognizes certain distinctions, such as between landlord and tenant or police and civilians, where specific rights and duties apply. Equality before the law also requires that its administration be free from bias, corruption, and political interference. Judges must be impartial, and legal processes should not favor the wealthy or powerful simply because of their ability to afford legal expenses.
Equal Protection of the Law: While equality before the law emphasizes that no distinctions should be made between individuals, equal protection recognizes that reasonable distinctions can be made in certain circumstances. This principle allows for “equal laws for equals and unequal laws for unequals,” meaning that the law can provide special provisions where necessary, such as reservations for disadvantaged groups, concessions for students, or special queues for women. Such rational discrimination is allowed to ensure fairness and address historical or social inequalities, as seen in the Indian Constitution.

However, legal equality can lose its significance if people do not have equal opportunities to seek justice. In many societies, accessing justice requires both time and money, which can lead to inequalities in practice. While everyone may have equal legal rights, not everyone can afford to assert those rights due to financial limitations. Although legal reforms have sought to address these issues, true equality before the law remains a challenge when economic disparities exist.

Different Conceptions of Equality

Democracy requires balancing two key aspects: equality for all individuals, regardless of caste, religion, gender, or class, and the pursuit of social justice. This means that in addition to ensuring equality of opportunity, there must also be a focus on creating equal conditions for all. Equality is a core principle in political theory, especially in democratic societies, where every individual is considered inherently valuable. Unlike justice, which often requires justification, equality is generally accepted as essential for citizens, though its interpretation has been widely debated throughout history.

Since ancient times, philosophers like Plato, Aristotle, and the Sophists have held differing views on equality. Thinkers in the medieval period approached it from a unique perspective, while modern thinkers like Rousseau emphasized the inherent equality of individuals, particularly through his social contract theory. Over time, various conceptions of equality have been developed and contested, resulting in numerous theories, schools of thought, and interpretations.

Different Schools of Thought

Two significant schools of thought on equality are contemporary egalitarianism and distributive egalitarianism. Though not homogenous, these approaches have shaped modern discussions on equality.

Distributive Egalitarianism

Distributive egalitarians argue that equality means an equal share of certain resources, such as money, welfare, or the capability to achieve valuable things. They believe these resources should be distributed equitably among people within a society. The distribution of resources—whether it be financial wealth, welfare, or abilities—must be fair, ensuring that every individual receives their fair share.

Distributive egalitarianism can be further divided:

Money leads to resource egalitarianism, focusing on the equitable distribution of material wealth.
Welfare relates to utilitarianism, aiming to maximize collective well-being.
Ability connects to capability egalitarianism, which advocates for equal access to human potential and capabilities.

Distributive egalitarians debate two key issues:

Which inequalities matter? For example, should resources, happiness, or capabilities be the focus?
Should personal responsibility justify unequal distribution? Some theorists, like Dworkin and Rawls, argue that unequal resource distribution can matter and that individuals must take responsibility for their actions. However, they agree that resources should generally be distributed equally.

Social egalitarians take a broader view, arguing that equality should not just be about distributing resources but also about ensuring that individuals enjoy equal status in society. This school of thought condemns inequalities of wealth and opportunities, especially in liberal democracies, and focuses on concepts like citizenship, fraternity, and social structure.

While both distributive and social egalitarians criticize the wealth and opportunity disparities found in liberal democracies, social egalitarians focus more on the broader social framework. They argue that equal social status, rather than just equitable resource distribution, is necessary to create a truly equal society.

In summary, democracy must strive to balance equality and social justice, ensuring both equal opportunities and equal conditions. Different schools of thought—distributive and social egalitarianism—offer unique perspectives on how to achieve this goal, emphasizing either the equitable distribution of resources or the importance of equal social status.

Debates on Equality

In political theory, there are three main schools of thought concerning equality: Resource Egalitarianism, Welfare Egalitarianism, and Capability Egalitarianism. Egalitarianism, as an ideology, principle, or doctrine, advocates for equal rights, benefits, and opportunities for all members of society.

Resource Egalitarian

Ronald Dworkin, one of the most influential thinkers on equality, developed a comprehensive theory of resource egalitarianism, emphasizing the role of luck and responsibility in a fair society. His ideas are rooted in the belief that resources are essential to fulfilling human desires and that they must be distributed equitably. This aligns with John Rawls’ theory of justice, particularly the concept of an imaginary contract, but Dworkin introduces the idea of “luck egalitarianism.”

Dworkin argues that people should be protected from the arbitrary effects of “brute luck”—circumstances beyond their control, such as being born with a disability or into poverty. He distinguishes between two types of resources:

Impersonal resources: These include wealth, opportunities, and other external factors that can be redistributed.
Personal resources: These refer to an individual’s physical and mental health, innate abilities, or limitations, which cannot be transferred.

Dworkin’s theory suggests that true equality occurs when each person has an equally satisfactory overall share of both personal and impersonal resources. He advocates for compensating those affected by brute luck by redistributing undeserved advantages from others. For instance, individuals born with disabilities or fewer talents should receive a larger share of impersonal resources (such as wealth or opportunities) to ensure overall equality in society.

The key principle of Dworkin’s “luck egalitarianism” is that people should be compensated for misfortunes they did not deserve, but compensation should come only from the portion of others’ good fortune that is itself undeserved. This approach balances ambition and endowment, aiming to create an egalitarian society by addressing both natural inequalities and differences in personal resources.

In contrast to Rawls’ contractual theory of justice, Dworkin envisions a system where fairness is achieved through compensating for brute luck, ensuring that individuals are not disadvantaged by factors outside their control. This concept of equality provides a framework for addressing deep-seated inequalities while recognizing the importance of personal responsibility and effort.

Welfare Egalitarian

G. A. Cohen and John Roemer emphasized the importance of pleasure, pain, and happiness in their discussions on equality, noting that preferences play a significant role in determining individual satisfaction. According to welfare egalitarianism, the focus is not on the equal distribution of resources, but rather on whether people experience similar levels of welfare. Welfare, in this context, is understood as the satisfaction of individual preferences and happiness, which vary from person to person.

A key criticism of this view is the concept of “adaptive preferences,” where people adjust their ambitions downward due to oppressive circumstances. In such cases, preferences are shaped by external factors rather than being neutral. Dworkin, a critic of welfare egalitarianism, argued against compensating individuals based on their preferences. He contended that compensation should be provided for inequalities in endowment, such as disabilities or disadvantages, but not for individual tastes or preferences. For example, those with expensive tastes should not receive extra resources simply to fulfill their desires.

Welfarists, on the other hand, argue that preferences are often deeply ingrained, shaped by childhood socialization and personal circumstances, making them an essential part of an individual’s personality. Despite this, Dworkin maintains that compensation should only address differences in endowment, not preferences, as compensating for the latter would lead to unfair outcomes.

Capability Egalitarian

The Capability Egalitarian school of thought, led by prominent thinkers Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum, focuses on capabilities rather than resources or preferences. This approach emphasizes assessing how well people are able to function by examining their capabilities—what they can do and become. In this context, “function” refers to a person’s actions and achievements, while “capability” represents the effective ability to perform or combine functions. For example, the ability to read is a function, while literacy is the corresponding capability. The Capability school prioritizes internal abilities like the capacity to read and write.

Amartya Sen particularly highlighted the role of both internal and external factors in shaping social discrimination, exploring how these factors impact an individual’s identity and opportunities.

Despite its influence, this approach is not without criticism. One critique is that it requires a concrete list of human functions to effectively compare individuals’ respective advantages and disadvantages. However, creating a definitive list of capabilities has proven challenging, as capabilities vary across different contexts and individuals, making it difficult to establish universal criteria.

Michael Walzer and Complex Equality

Michael Walzer’s theory of “spheres of justice,” presented in his book Spheres of Justice, challenges traditional egalitarian perspectives, such as those represented by John Rawls. Walzer famously stated, “money equally distributed at twelve noon on Sunday will be unequally redistributed before the week is out” (Walzer, 1983: xi). He argues that in a hierarchical society, elites can leverage their success in one area to gain advantages in another, which distorts justice.

Walzer’s concept of complex equality aims to prevent inequality in one sphere from spilling over into others. He argues that the same distributional principles cannot be applied across all areas of life; different goods, produced within different social contexts, require distinct distribution criteria. For instance, economic inequality is necessary to distinguish between hard work and laziness, but that standard shouldn’t apply to family life—one cannot give more food to more competent children, just as market equality cannot justify family inequality.

Walzer criticizes Rawls’ idea of a universal principle of distribution, emphasizing that justice is always relative to the social meanings attached to goods within different spheres. He argues that egalitarianism oversimplifies the human condition by trying to eliminate dominance and make everyone equal. Instead, Walzer believes that domination is not a result of dominant individuals, but of the control over social goods. Rather than trying to “stretch or shrink” individuals to fit a certain model of equality, society should focus on understanding and managing these social goods in a way that prevents domination.

Conclusion

The discussion of equality begins with an exploration of its meaning and nature. As a multi-dimensional concept, equality encompasses various interpretations, shaped by its arguments, demands, and relevance to society and individuals. It is examined through different lenses, particularly focusing on natural, social-political, economic, and legal dimensions. Equality, especially in the form of political egalitarianism, is a fundamentally modern and progressive principle. It seeks to address and challenge the social inequalities of class, status, power, and gender that characterize human societies.

References

Johari, J.C. (2006), Contemporary Political Theory
Wadhwani, Manohar (2008), An Introduction To Politics
Ramaswamy, Sushila (2003), Political Theory- Ideas & Concepts
Heywood, Andrew (2007), Politics
Clarke, P. Liberals and Social Democrats. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978.
Martell, L. (ed.) Social Democracy: Global and National Perspectives.
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2001. Sassoon, D. One Hundred Years of
Socialism. London: Fontana, 1997.