Well, it's what we've got...

Here's my paper. I got an A. Woot.

"As voters the poor have a voice in Democratic countries, but poverty persists in these societies. How does democracy succeed and fail at providing a voice to the poor? Please evaluate in the light of what you have read in this course."

Well, I'll tell you:

Democracy, supposedly the ideal system for the existence of equality, fails the poor. The paradox in democracy's failure to eradicate poverty is especially evident in poor democracies. "In principle, the poor ought to…exercise greater pressure…by virtue of their numbers alone."[1] However, this is not the case: corrupt governments in developing countries preclude actual change. As such, the poor can only do so much for themselves; the government must take an initiative in alleviating poverty. The contradiction, then, is that even in a democratic system, the poor do not have the ability to have their voices heard.

By definition, a democratic government exists solely to serve the people it represents; yet in practice, most democracies fail to alleviate poverty, among other voiced issues. In the United States and the rest of the world, no democracy has solved the problem of poverty. However, neither has any other political system; in the following I examine the failures of democracy in terms of civic participation and governmental inaction, suggest methods for overcoming the obstacles posed by existing democracy, and finally weigh the value of the democratic system against authoritarian rule. When democracy fails the poor, or any group, it does so on two levels: voice and implementation. With regard to the former, the issue is further divided into voting access and other civic participation.

I. Voice: Voting
Voter turnout among the lower classes in the United States has declined to a greater extent than that of the higher classes[2], with an eleven percent drop among the lowest quintile comparing to only eight percent among the highest quintile[3] . As a result, the income of the median voter has increased. With politicians increasingly targeting only the median voter[4], the effect is that the lower classes are left out of political discourse in political campaigns. As such, the lower classes are not being courted for their votes, so they further abstain from voting, which only serves to exacerbate the problem.

In all democracies, the groups with the highest turnout are those whose concerns the politicians running for office actually address. In the United States, where poverty issues are excluded from political discourse, the poor rarely vote.[5] Conversely, in India, where politicians make empty promises to the poor, the lower classes vote in droves, while the middle and upper classes vote significantly less[6]. Further, the poor in the both countries are a fragmented minority; they represent all identity groups, so the "poor" label is not a unifying factor. Though the poor care about poverty, they do not vote solely economically. Furthermore, because their economic concerns are not represented in campaigns in the first place[7], the poor must vote on other issues, which rarely unite them. In the U.S. two-party system in which neither party addresses the needs of the poor, they have no reason to vote for either, and less reason to vote on economic grounds.

Still, especially in poor democracies, voting does make a difference. In India, where the poor make up a majority of the voting population[8], they are able to remove ineffective and dishonest politicians from office. Yet the turnover rate for Indian parliament is eighty-five percent, which implies that in the course of removing corrupt officials, the poor are obligated to replace them with equally corrupt candidates. Their votes make a difference in elections, but elections do not change the way the government operates. This illuminates the second aspect of democratic failure, on the part of the government itself.

II. Voice: Volunteering and Campaigns
During the twentieth century, political action shifted from membership-based groups like the Women's Christian Temperance Union to professionally run[9] lobbying organizations, from which the poor are excluded. Those who are highly educated with respect to the poverty issue have a low likelihood of personal experience, and those with extensive personal experience are unlikely to have much formal education. Both cases preclude the development of an effective, representative interest group. The emphasis for professional groups is on gaining funding; they solicit donations through mass mailings and electronic communication. Whereas membership-based groups were inclusive because they developed through "communication by personal contact"[10], professional advocacy agencies rely on impersonal methods of contact, which exclude the poor. Counter intuitively, the poor volunteer in campaigns, and more so than their wealthy counterparts.[11] While the civic environment may be discouraging to the poor, they still participate. However, their counterparts fill the role of "writers of checks and letters"[12], which may actually have more effect on the politicians they wish to persuade, as I will explain later.

It is important to note here that the obstacles the poor face in active civic participation, especially in the United States, are not inherent faults of the democratic system, but of contribution-dependent democracy as it exists today. The poor struggle to participate because they lack resources ("they can't"), are disengaged from the political process ("they don't want to"), and because they are isolated from recruitment networks ("nobody asked"),[13] not because democracy has failed to provide them space for voice.

III. Implementation
As a result of the expense required to run an effective campaign, politicians are not just sensitive to, but dependent on special interests in order to hold their careers[14]. As such, the actions they take while in office reflect the interests of their major contributors. Elected officials are accountable to those who put them in office. In a theoretical democracy, this group is the people. In reality, especially in the United States, it is corporations and lobbying groups. No major lobbying group represents the poor; there is no "Big Poverty" to parallel "Big Tobacco", and as a result, politicians have no accountability to the poor.

In a democracy, median voters' recognition of the value of equalizing the system is critical to success in reducing poverty: in a system in which politicians try to appeal to the widest range of voters, this median group must take issue with the welfare of the poor in order for their representatives to put it on the docket. As was previously noted, the income of the median voter in the United States has increased as a result of rising economic inequality, so the likelihood of the median voter's concerns including economic disparity has decreased. The wider the gap between rich and poor, the harder it is for people on either end of the scale to see themselves on the opposite. Those on opposite ends of the economic scale now physically live in isolated regions; the rich in suburbs and the poor in the inner cities. Without seeing the poor or their struggles on a daily basis, it is easier for the upper classes to ignore the poor, in the "out of sight, out of mind" sense. Further, the increased distance from the poor allows the upper classes the freedom of an empathy gulf[15]—it is inconceivable that they could find themselves in the same situation as the lower class, so they have the luxury of apathy.

Since the supply side is effectively the upper classes (for tax reasons) and those with legislative power (the democratic government)[16], the obstacles in implementing supply side change boil down to convincing that side both that the issue of poverty exists and also that it is worth their time, money, and effort to alleviate. Recurring through several discussions of the issue is the idea that "public officials act for many reasons, only one of which is their assessment of what the public wants and needs"[17]; that is, serving their electorate is not necessarily a politician's primary objective.

IV. Solving the Problems
Solutions to this multifaceted issue, then, address two different problems: that of mobilizing the poor (demand side), and that of having their actions recognized and addressed (supply side). Increased voter turnout can be achieved by "increasing the number of venues for registering [and voting], reducing the time between registration and voting…opening polling booths for more hours…get-out-the-vote campaigns"[18]. Civic volunteering can be organized by outside groups such as MOSES, which works to engage the poor in their communities, in spite of its professional origins. However, the line between "doing for instead of doing with"[19] is fine and should be treaded cautiously.

On the supply side, reform should target the processes by which government is elected and effected. The existence of multiple veto points[20] prevents progression towards equality; circumventing bureaucracy in favor of direct contact with and among elected officials reduces this problem. The "lesser-of-two-evils" voting complex can be resolved by a system of proportional representation, which tends to favor downward distribution policies.[21] In light of this, and that "[m]arket economies continually manufacture new sources of inequality",[22] the way to resist increased inequality, if not to actively decrease it, is in resisting "the multiplication of veto points and the force of fiscal federalism… [and] the impulse to…transfer [the functions of the state] to religious and other civic organizations"[23]; "handing public social services to religious congregations…might do more harm than good."[24] That is, change to the system can only be effected internally; giving power to extra-governmental systems like the church will only decrease a democratic system's ability to right itself. Further, it would make the government dependent on outside organizations, inhibiting its authority and independence.

In order to be effective, any policy change intended to benefit the poor must have the input of the poor themselves. Without personal experience and understanding of the daily issues the poor face, no policy maker can effectively work to solve the problem; "top-down solutions have…failed" nine out of ten times.[25] Even well-intentioned measures were ill in result because the people the program was to benefit were not consulted. Case in point, "the Aguthi Rural Water Supply Project in Kenya…ran into construction delays, cost overruns, and disagreement over payment methods" until local officials consulted the community; "with community involvement…the project was completed on time and within budget."[26]

V. Is Democracy Worth It?
Yet the existence of democracy in the first place lends itself to benefiting the poor. Though democratic systems are clearly not perfect, those subject to authoritarian rule are much less likely to be able to effect change. The existence of stable democracy ensures that the people have the right and ability to voice their grievances; under dictatorship, criticism of the government is severely punished and, subsequently, rare. Though there have been cases of authoritarian regimes that have succeeded in reducing poverty, particularly in communist China, such systems have no guarantee for egalitarianism. The success or failure of such a country's attempts to alleviate poverty are subject to the whims of a ruler who has no accountability—the people did not put him there, they have no way to address their needs to him, and they cannot remove him without civil war. Democracy, at the very least, is structured in a way to permit and promote accountability and voice. "Democracies have been slow and steady…in attacking poverty… [but] authoritarian rule shows no such pattern."[27]

The actual implementation of alleviating measures, however, is equally uncertain in either system: that is, governments can make any number of promises without effecting visible change. The difference is that in a democracy, the people have the option of voting an ineffective official out of office in the hope that whoever fills his position is better. Furthermore, as an authoritarian regime becomes more egalitarian, it builds the foundation for democracy; as a result of increased economic equality in South Korea[28], the people moved to create a democratic state.

The contrapositive does not hold true, however. Ineffective democracy does not yield to autocracy of the people's own volition: the existence of democracy fosters equality, the existence of effective democracy promotes it, and the existence of corrupt democracy still does not actively work against it. To reiterate, there is no such guarantee in an authoritarian state. If those in power are welfare-minded, the implications for the poor could be profitable, but there is no safeguard in place to protect the people from the opposite case, as it usually occurs.

In discussing issues of poverty, it is easy to consider the impoverished as a "naked, hungry mass".[29] However, the poor of the world are full people, with thoughts and feelings just as valid as those of the upper classes. Having a voice in the political system helps to combat feelings of "helplessness and vulnerability" among the disadvantaged;[30] there is symbolic and psychological value in the presence of a democratic system. Democracy may not offer a quick fix to poverty, but it is the best system of the options that exist in the world today. Theoretical situations may proffer other solutions, but as a matter of practicality and reality, democracy surpasses authoritarian rule as a means to end poverty.

Bibliography

1. Shapiro, Ian. "Democracy and Distribution" in The State of Democratic Theory, Princeton University Press, 2003.
2. Varshney, Ashutosh. "Why Haven't Poor Democracies Eliminated Poverty?" Sage Publication, 2004.
3. Freeman, Richard B. "What, Me Vote?" in Social Inequality. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2004.
4. Schlozman, Kay L., Verba, Sidney, Brady, Henry E. "Civic Participation and the Equality Problem" in Civic Engagement in American Democracy. Washington, D.C: Brookings Institution Press, 1999.
5. Skocpol, Theda. Diminished Democracy: From Membership to Management in American Civic Life. University of Oklahoma Press, 2003.
6. Kanbur, Ravi, Squire, Lyn. "The Evolution of Thinking About Poverty: Exploring the Interactions" in Frontiers of Development Economics: The Future in Perspective. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.

[1] Varshney, p. 1
[2] Freeman, p.717
[3] Freeman, p. 720
[4] Freeman
[5] Freeman
[6] Varshney
[7] Though welfare and social security reform are often touted on campaign platforms, they are marketed only to middle-class voters, not those with lower incomes.
[8] Varshney, p. 1
[9] Skocpol
[10] Skocpol
[11] Schlozman et al., p. 433
[12] Schlozman et al., p. 431
[13] Schlozman et al., p. 431
[14] Shapiro
[15] Shapiro, p. 133
[16] Shapiro
[17] Schlozman et al., p. 429
[18] Freeman, p. 704
[19] Skocpol, p. 227
[20] Shapiro
[21] Shapiro, p. 142
[22] Shapiro, p. 141
[23] Shapiro, p. 141
[24] Skocpol, p. 255
[25] Kanbur and Squire, pp. 214-15
[26] Kanbur and Squire, p. 215
[27] Varshney, p. 1
[28] Varshney, p. 3
[29] Jawaharlal Nehru
[30] Kanbur and Squire, p. 207