Democracy’s promise to the poor, hampered by corruption

Famine kills millions of people in different countries of the world, but it does not kill rulers. According to Abraham Lincoln, democracy is government of the people, by the people and for the people. However, in the current context it has become: “Democracy is government by leaders, by leaders, for leaders.”

Democracy has the potential to be beneficial to people living in poverty, but its impact depends on various factors, such as the quality of governance, the level of inclusion in decision-making processes, and the presence of strong institutions that protect the rights of all citizens, including the poor.

If democracies spend more money on public services than non-democracies, why don’t they perform better? Perhaps democracies subsidize the budgets of middle- and upper-income groups who can afford private purchases of food and health services, but not the poor, as many studies claim that democracies do better than nondemocracies at improving the well-being of citizens. poor guy. These claims are consistent with leading political economy models, which suggest that democracies produce more public goods and provide greater income redistribution than nondemocracies.

The effectiveness of democracy

In democratic systems, marginalized groups, including the poor, usually have more opportunities to have a say in government policies and decisions. They can participate in elections, advocate for their needs and hold their leaders accountable through various democratic mechanisms such as freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and access to information. Moreover, democratic governments often implement social welfare programs aimed at reducing poverty and inequality through policies such as education and health care reforms, social safety nets, and poverty reduction programs. These measures can help improve the living conditions of the poor and provide them with better opportunities for career advancement.

However, in the current context, we see that the effectiveness of democracy is in decline. We can take example from many nations like our country, Nepal, since our country became a democracy, the average economic growth is around 3-4 percent per year and corruption has increased at a rapid pace. Almost every political party’s senior leaders have been convicted of corruption. Opposition leaders in our neighboring country are in prison on various corruption charges. China does not have a democratic government like our nation, but it also has a double-digit economic growth rate.

We have been trying to alleviate poverty since the first periodic plans, but soon we will have 16 plans, we are still trying to reduce the poverty rate. Another important problem for democracy is the constitutional crisis we are seeing in the provincial government. Who will work for the people if there is no government? Elections are becoming so expensive that a normal person is unable to run in them.

Another backslide of democracy is the acceleration of ultra-nationalism and ultra-religiosity among people. We see that since 2014, when the BJP came to power, ultra-nationalism and ultra-regionalism have reached their peak. The poverty rate has not decreased, but other factors have increased. In the USA, Gun culture also strongly emphasizes its roots. Due to the unstable government, our country has unstable policies, as a result of which no direct or indirect benefits are deprived to the poor. Recently, the government has mandated a 10% fee for health insurance cards. We all know that still 17 percent of Nepal’s total population lives below the poverty line. How do they pay this money? It’s good for those who have money, but what about those who don’t have money?

However, democracy is not a panacea, and its effectiveness in the fight against poverty depends on how well it works in practice. In many cases, democratic systems can face challenges such as corruption, political instability and partisan gridlock, which can hinder the implementation of effective poverty reduction measures.

Obstacle

In many democracies, wealthy individuals and powerful interest groups can exert disproportionate influence on the political process through campaign contributions, lobbying, and other means. This can result in policies that favor the interests of the wealthy elite over those of the poor. In the United States, for example, the influence of corporate donors and special interest groups has led to policies that favor tax cuts for the wealthy and deregulation, widening income inequality and hampering efforts to address poverty.

Democratically elected leaders may prioritize short-term gains and populist policies aimed at gaining public support rather than implementing long-term poverty reduction strategies. This can lead to unsustainable social welfare programs, poor financial management and the neglect of key investments in education, health care and infrastructure. Countries like Venezuela have witnessed the harmful effects of populist policies that have contributed to economic instability, hyperinflation, and widespread poverty.

Democracy is based on consensus building and compromise, but it can also be prone to political polarization and gridlock, especially in deeply divided societies. This may make it difficult to enact meaningful reforms to address poverty and inequality, as partisan disputes and ideological differences impede progress. The political paralysis seen in countries such as Italy and Belgium highlights the challenges of governing effectively in a democratic system.

Despite democratic norms and institutions designed to maintain transparency and accountability, many democracies struggle with corruption and cronyism, which can divert resources from poverty reduction efforts. Elected officials may engage in patronage politics, allocating resources based on personal connections rather than merit or need. This perpetuates the cycle of poverty and undermines trust in government institutions. For example, corruption scandals have plagued democracies such as Brazil and South Africa, undermining public trust and hampering efforts to combat poverty.

The need to acknowledge the limits of democracy

Democracies are often vulnerable to external pressures, including economic globalization and international financial institutions, which may prioritize market policies that benefit wealthy elites and multinational corporations at the expense of the poor. Structural adjustment programs imposed by organizations such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) have been criticized for deepening poverty and inequality in developing countries by promoting austerity measures and deregulation. Although democracy promises empowerment and representation for all citizens, its effectiveness in fighting poverty depends on a number of factors, including the strength of institutions, the integrity of elected officials, and the presence of checks and balances to prevent capture and abuse by power elites. Recognizing the limits of democracy is essential to designing more equitable and inclusive governance systems that prioritize the needs of the poor and marginalized.

In the tapestry of nations, democracy appears not only as a system of government, but also as a catalyst for social progress and poverty reduction. Although challenges remain and the implementation of democratic ideals may vary depending on context, the evidence overwhelmingly suggests that democracy is indeed good for the poor. By empowering marginalized communities, promoting inclusive governance, maintaining the rule of law, and supporting economic opportunity, democracies offer a path to a more just and prosperous future for all.

As we navigate the complexities of our global landscape, let us reaffirm our commitment to democratic principles and work tirelessly to build societies where the promise of justice, equality and dignity for every person, especially the poor, is fulfilled. While democracy can benefit the poor by providing them with greater political representation and access to social welfare programs, its impact depends on the specific context and the effectiveness of governance mechanisms in addressing the root causes of poverty.