A Contemporary Interpretation of Political Equality - Essay Example

? Political Equality Modern interpretation Contemporary interpretation of “political equality” refers to citizens’ preferences receiving equal weight in all matters from their government (Bond & Smith, 2010). This is especially in influencing decisions’ processes and having equal say regarding states’ matters without subjection to any form of segregation or demeaning treatment because a person is unique in a certain way (Bond & Smith, 2010). Therefore, a person or citizen bears equal opportunities in the capacity of political participation, knowledge attainment, wealth and social persuasion besides other varied aspects related to political influence (Neyer, 2012). Interpretation of this term currently revolves around politics and other related areas where citizens ought to give their collective opinion as stated by their states’ constitutions. Hence, it is a citizen right irrespective of his or her origin, gender, race, political persuasion or opinion to exercise what according to the constitution is a mandatory. This implies a person based on what he or she feels towards a certain issue should express oneself freely but within the guidelines set by his or her states’ constitution (Neyer, 2012). In addition, political equality implies every person bears “equality under the law” (Bond & Smith, 2010, p. 8). This means any regime ought to demand adherence to all set laws from its respective citizens without any impartiality based on either status or identity (Bond & Smith, 2010). This also applies in arbitrating justice where any wrongdoer should face fair judgment without any bigotry. Case study Contemporary evidence of political equality is evident in Guatemala where the regime not only ensures effective mechanisms meant to promote ethnic mobilization but also women to participate in politics (Vogt, 2011). Ethnic mobilization in this case refers to the” ethnicization” of the former marginalized groups in Latin America, which did not have any say in influencing any political process or action there earlier but lived in passivity of what other mainstream groups already implemented. However, this norm by inferior ethnic groups continuously experiencing political marginalization has ceased to exist where many of them since 1970s up to date have explicitly emerged to the limelight of political arena to claim equal treatment (Vogt, 2011). Equal treatment or say in this case implies enjoying same land rights, bilingual education/culture and even self-determination in their respective territories without any form of coercion from the state or influential people (Vogt, 2011). Latin America and especially Guatemala to have this attainment has taken persistent civil disobedience by varied movements in the region, which up to date they are still active prompting the female gender to take part in politics (“UN Women”). This is due to the elimination of numerous barriers in form of segregation and low opinion of the female gender especially while showing interests of venturing in politics. The evidence of political equality in Guatemala in terms of political participation was evident in 2011 whereby 51% of all voters comprised the female gender besides recording high number of women candidates vying for varied posts contrary to other past years (“UN Women”). Consequently, prompting UN Women claim the time for the female gender to determine the shape of Guatemala’s politics has already come. However, this overwhelming emergency of women in politics during then up to date was through UN Women’s efforts by training candidates especially from small ethnic groups, which due to their earlier inferiority experienced marginalization (“UN Women”). Training initiatives mainly provided by UN Women focuses creating awareness concerning the essence of voting by indigenous women and increasing their political presence. This is because they will not only claim their fundamental rights but also develop others by imparting them with the right political information. Critique However, political equality besides seeming to have conventional interpretation theoretically across numerous scholars, I think its practical implementation is completely different. This is evident in the way in any given regime despite having outlined fundamental rights, majority of the people continue to experience marginalization. This is in terms of certain grievances taking long before addressed properly or forgotten all together by the government. The reason behind this action is not the government or its respective authorities are not listening but tend to find a common ground in addressing the majority’s say (Bond & Smith, 2010). This is because people have different wants, demands and preferences whereby in addressing each of them is extremely difficult (Bond & Smith, 2010). Therefore, this is a “cacophony of preferences”, which are extremely contrasting to the extent use of the term “political equality” only exists theoretically (Bond & Smith, 2010). Since, there will be no time when the government through its mechanisms will satisfy its people’s preferences effectively and ensure equality (Bond & Smith, 2010). Mostly, the government through its respective authorities or political institutions usually prefers to check on grievances, which the majority has pointed out. Hence, end up leaving out specific and even individual grievances because they do not have adequate support by the majority. Sometimes this is segregation because “the majority” in a given regime may encompass influential people who due to their enormous contribute to the state’s economy end up benefiting (Bond & Smith, 2010). For instance, the chairperson of Microsoft’s sentiments compared to that of a mere citizen especially when the former expresses certain policy’s impact may jeopardize his corporation’s interests. Therefore, this may prompt certain influential people in politics push for the alteration of that policy because the corporate investor may decide to divert his investment ventures to other directions and leave the country deprived immense revenue from Microsoft. Therefore, I think the term “political equality” only exists theoretically and entrenched in our states’ constitutions but not implemented practically due to citizens’ varying preferences, wants and demands such that the government cannot satisfy them all but choose majority’s say. Dominant scholars’ perceptions The term “political equality” despite engrained in numerous constitutions and law scholars upholding it as the key measure of how the government of the day ought to treat its citizens, some contend it is unclear besides misleading. For instance, Charles Beitz feels the expression of this term is far from what a given state through its respective authorities it can offer to citizens (Beitz 1989). This is because it is more of an ideal than a reality in terms of its application. Therefore, he advocates for a clear interpretation of the term before its use and application especially when referring to fundamental rights, which citizens should enjoy while in their respective states. Since, this is what will give it a meaning and firm foundation within an already defined scope. This is especially in terms of rights and distribution of resources (like finances, land) by citizens whereby they should benefit equally (Beitz 1989). According to Beitz’s arguments in his essay, political equality interpretation should include a broad framework instead of small bits meant to expound it when making appropriate applications. This is to bring out its exact meaning besides eliminating current evident controversies (Beitz 1989). For instance, this term implies citizens have the power to “indirectly” or “directly” control the law-making power process besides sharing it in equal distribution. This is notoriously controversial especially in the latter where power is not a tangible object, which citizens can share equally among them. Wagenaar (2011) in his study contends today’s mode of political equality refers to one aspect, which is voting. Hence, disregarding other aspects that are essential to citizens in exercising what they deem according to the law is right. Based on his study, Wagenaar cites current systems of regimes normally adopt pluralism and collective attention when addressing issues that affect their respective citizens (Wagenaar, 2011). This is completely different from what the term “political equality” implies especially in addressing significant and essential personal rights of an individual. Many global constitutions only prefer combination of widespread voter exercise whereas key decisions despite at certain circumstances citizens initiate move to influence them, only the top administrative bureaucracies seem to have the final say. Hence, blur inclusive forms of democracy policies embedded in the ideal term “political equality” (Wagenaar, 2011). In addition, this term is extremely complex despite some scholars citing to be an ideal reference of how diverse political institutions ought to treat any citizen equally (Knight & Johnson, 2011). Therefore, based on Rawls’s implication political equality should only guarantee every citizen a “fair value” irrespective of his or her capacity in a given society (Knight & Johnson, 2011). His interpretation and emphasis of implication of “political equality” differs from other scholars because he only asserts the concept of “fairness”, which is a bit realistic (Knight & Johnson, 2011). This is in terms of opportunities and other public benefits entitled o a legal citizen, which also encompasses justice. Therefore, anything above minimum in terms of justice and other societal benefits entrenched in a state’s constitution to him is what it encompass “political equality” but not the term alone (Knight & Johnson, 2011). This is because the term will be referring to an ideal implication, which is extremely far from its realization by citizens or those claiming to uphold it in their respective states. References Beitz, C. R. (1989). Political equality: an essay in democratic theory. Princeton, N.J., Princeton University Press. Bond, J. R., & Smith, K. B. (2010). The promise and performance of American democracy. Boston, MA, Wadsworth Cengage Learning. Knight, J., & Johnson, J. (2011). The priority of democracy political consequences pragmatism. Princeton [N.J.], Princeton University Press Neyer, J. (2012). The justification of Europe: a political theory of supranational integration. Oxford, Oxford University Press. “Time for Women to Shape Politics in Guatemala.” UN Women. [online] Available at: [Accessed 15 December 2013] Vogt, M. (2011) “Ethnic Mobilization and Political Equality in Latin America.” [online] Available at: [Accessed 15 December 2013]. Wagenaar, H. (2011). Meaning in action: interpretation and dialogue in policy analysis. Armonk, New York: M.E. Sharpe. Read More