Does economic inequality inevitably lead to problems of political inequality?
In the 21st century we can no longer point to economic inequality as a factor in political inequality. Instead, economic inequality should be considered as a factor in the reducing inequality in our political system through creating hostile, disenfranchised citizens more willing to engage in the political process.
The question asked in the prompt might very well have been the case in the 19th century where governments of the one per cent dominated politics with no representation for the working people of society. In that instance the economic inequality, created through centuries of exploitation from the landed gentry, directly led to political power being concentrated amongst the elites of society creating a glass ceiling which no other individual, not born into the upper echelons of the social hierarchy, could break through. This created a dominant political class which stifled democracy, participation and any chance of an equitable society. In The Green Book, Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi directly spoke about the dangers of a dominant political class where actions are taken to limit the political voice of the marginalised in society, labelling them ‘policies of suppression’. These so-called policies of suppression could be interpreted as the withholding of the franchise from the working class, bans against union and party membership or even attacks against freedom of speech through anti-protest policies. In the 21st century, this is thankfully no longer the case and the barrier of entry in politics, especially in the digital era is at an all-time low. I would even go as far as to say that political inequality, to a large extent, no longer exists in the majority of well-functioning democracies as people from all backgrounds, regions and social statuses find themselves in positions of power.
The opposing claim is that because groups of people in any given nation are living in poverty, or in worse conditions than the elite of their society, they have the feeling of the system not working in their favour creating political disenfranchisement. Because of this, less of them engage with politics and democracy leading to the phenomenon of political inequality. However, it’s important to note that economic inequality in any society is unavoidable. Whether in socialism or capitalism, a planned economy or a market-based one, there will always be people who will be able to utilise their skills or resources around them to a greater extent than those around them. This cycle continues through generations as those who acquire this wealth teach their children how to do so, either directly or through utilising their capital to ensure that their offspring acquire the highest level of education possible. Children are therefore thrown into something referred to as the lottery of birth, where their success in life is largely determined by whichever parents they are born to and the region of the world they’re born in.
The Rich get richer...
This can be explained from an idea in sociology known as The Matthew Effect as was coined by American Robert K Merton. In his work, Merton aimed to establish how more well-known scientists received greater recognition for their research than less prominent scientists who have contributed similar or perhaps even more influential work but have little to no existing reputation. As trivial as this might seem on a micro level it carries an important societal message. Those with more can use the fact they have more for maximum accumulation of whatever they aspire for whilst those without stay without. The entire reason this is called the Matthew Effect is because of a direct quote taken from the book of Matthew, accredited to Jesus Christ which reads, “for whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them”. This is often boiled down to the phrase the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer which is misleadingly over simplified and misses the actual meaning of the message. Before the quoted verse the full story is that Jesus was telling the parable of The Three Servants, a story against laziness. It started with a master giving his most trusted servant five bags of gold, another two and another one as he went on a journey. The servant with one bag of gold decided to dig a hole to keep his money safe whilst the others who were given two and five decided to use their money effectively, getting more bags of gold in the process. After the master returned, he punished the lazy servant, ordering him to give his gold to the most successful one.
 |
| Robert K. Merton (1910-2003) |
What this story shows is a lack of ambition from the poorest individual not the nihilistic doom and gloom catchphrase it’s been brought to mean. From a political standpoint, all of them had the same opportunity to utilise what they had to achieve success regardless of the obvious example of economic inequality. Each of them could have given a few coins from their bag to join a political party, run for local council and make a difference for their community. But the man with the least, held back by a loser’s laissez-faire mentality, chose to not engage and blame his initial situation for his actions rather than taking accountability. To reiterate, I would understand if engaging in the political process, in any way, cost extortionate amounts of money. However, running for council, as in my example, is free of charge. If you were to add in membership fees, all major parties offer concessionary rates in the UK with the Liberal Democrats offering membership for as low as £1 a month. In the US, the Democrats and Republicans have no set fee for entry, whilst in Germany numerous parties offer membership at 1% of annual income. This is to directly ensure that economic inequality in no way leads to political inequality. Funding for running for election might be an issue with the extremely wealthy being able to effectively buy their way into seats through the mass purchasing of election material, adverts and in some cases, even paying canvassers to maximise the chances of victory. However, the purchasing of power is becoming increasingly frowned upon and in some cases outright rejected as was the case with Andrew Cuomo’s upset loss to Zohran Mamdani in the New York Democratic Primary. In much less high-profile cases the political party bears the brunt of costs for running for office. Germany’s progressive state funding of parties is a highly effective way of minimising the effects of big donors on political parties. The state pays parties in order of vote share, allowing them to disperse their funds to candidates and fund their campaigns. So, what this shows is that due to increased regulation, restrictions, and a shift in public opinion individual wealth is no longer the dominant factor behind the chances of a campaign's success. Thanks to this no individual can point to economic circumstances as a reason for not attempting to influence the political process.
At the ballot box
In recent times we have seen that the victims of economic inequality are becoming increasingly more active in our political process. The feeling of the state working against you is in no way a disincentive to engage with politics as evidenced by the growing power of the working-class voting bloc. Britain’s populist-right party Reform UK have a live membership standing at over 230,000 members. The leadership of Nigel Farage and Zia Yusuf have weaponised Britain’s acceptance of foreign migrants and the relatively tiny number of small boat crossings to create a message that the political establishment is against the working people of Britain. These people have then chosen to ensure that their opinion, through the mouthpiece of Reform, can be heard in the political process by becoming members or supporters. Members of Reform’s core base are often from relatively poorer socio-economic backgrounds as seen by the concentration of Reform’s vote share amongst the most deprived constituencies in the country, clearly showing that their position on the economic ladder has encouraged them to engage in democracy in a way they might not have done if they were in a more comfortable position. This isn’t even a pattern exclusive to right-wing politics. At the current moment, Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana’s proposed leftist party have over 500,000 sign-ups with that figure rising by the hour. These people are not wealthy or amongst those content with the current situation of the nation, they are people whose disenfranchisement has led them to harbour a lack of trust towards our political institutions, directly driving polarisation. However, the benefit of political polarisation is the way in which it can be used to turn emotions into political engagement. Farage regularly refers to the establishment, or Westminster elite in his speeches whilst Sultana and Corbyn target millionaires and billionaires as the cause for society’s problems. Since the announcement of their startup party Sultana has repeatedly used the phrase, “billionaires already have three parties fighting for them. It’s time the rest of us had one” on social media. This creates an us vs them mentality, splitting society into sections whilst demonising the other. Those on the side of the charismatic leader feel they need to beat the other side through doing what the leader says. This could range from appearing to vote at the ballot box to encouraging friends and family to engage with the party on social media. Polarisation is able to create narratives of superiority to the ‘unbelievers’ of whatever political movement one chooses to align with, creating persistent engagement which continues even after power is won as seen through the successes of MAGA in the United States.
 |
| New York Mayoral Candidate Zohran Mamdani |
Fundamentally, economic inequality is a failure of the state to fulfil its social contract with its people. Those who lose out from inequality have every right to feel betrayed by those in power. Thomas Hobbes’ idea of a social contract was laid out in his book Leviathan which spoke of the necessity of the state to ensure the safety of mankind. To put his ideas in a modern perspective, we were meant to sacrifice some of our liberties to live in a state where we’re protected from the suffering of the state of nature. However, people no longer feel safe and protected in our liberal democracies. Economic inequality ensures that some people are never in a position to own a home or achieve their goals and aspirations. Some don’t even feel safe in their own communities as those concentrated in deprived communities become victims of crimes of desperation at the hands of those in the same position. This isn’t the life we were meant to sacrifice our liberties for. However, the one benefit of this is that those in this position are therefore rightly frustrated with their position. When bad things happen, we as humans generally look for a reason as any rational being does. Whether this be immigrants or billionaires they now have a greater reason to engage with politics.
The purchasing of power
There are still concerns over the impact that wealth has in the winning of political office, in spite of our collective progress in preventing it. America’s current President is a child of real-estate millionaire whilst his cabinet picks ensure he’s surrounded by other affluent individuals in the decision-making process. Over 60% of Rishi Sunak’s 2024 cabinet were privately educated, for context only 7% of British students attend fee-paying schools, an astronomical overrepresentation. The obvious concern of this is the rich using the rich to keep the rich in power, an example of the Matthew Effect at work.
However, to this I’d say that inequality has simply led people to explore other vehicles of engaging with the democratic process. Democracy has expanded from simply election time box-ticking and can be seen and analysed through engagement with pressure groups and political movements. In the last couple of years public support for the Palestinian resistance, anti-ICE protests and Britain’s far-right riots are all examples of increased political participation. One’s ability to engage with this has no correlation to economic welfare as the act of protest and opposition to a government is free of charge, assuming the rule of law is upheld.
To conclude, over time our politics is growing increasingly more equitable. Working-class politicians have risen across the world, showing their willingness to engage in the political process. In the Western world we have unprecedented levels of political freedoms. Engaging in democracy no longer requires deep family connections or massive amounts of financial capital, instead all that is required is determination and savvy use of the already available political institutions. The concern of the rich buying politics will always remain if governments continue to allow billionaires to bankroll our political parties and fail to ban large donor funding. However, the problems of political inequality have been largely mitigated through donation caps, and party manpower. The few states in the world where political inequality remains a concern are the ones with hyper-aggressive restrictions on freedoms of speech and democracy. However, in those states the reasoning behind this isn’t economic inequality, but rather suppression of liberties by overbearing regimes hell-bent on maintaining order and control by any means possible. Economic inequality is a net negative the more it increases. Crime is driven up whilst satisfaction and quality of life plummets. However, blaming it for political inequality is incorrect and doing so should now be a thing of the past.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
- Gadaffi M (1975) – The Green Book. Tripoli
- Merton, R. K. (1988). The Matthew Effect in Science, II: Cumulative Advantage and the Symbolism of Intellectual Property. Isis, 79(4), 606–623. http://www.jstor.org/stable/234750
- New International Version Bible – Matthew 25
- OCSI (2025) – General Election 2024: Voting patterns in England by deprivation and community need. https://ocsi.uk/2024/08/15/voting-patterns-in-england-by-deprivation-and-community-need/ - Reviewed 7/31/2025
- Hobbes T (1651). Leviathan – London