Abstract
Abstract:Fair value of equal political liberties is a key precondition for the legitimacy of a regime in liberal thought. This liberal guarantee is breached whenever a group is permanently or semi-permanently locked out of power. Given the convertibility, subtlety, and resilience of power, gross material inequality – produced by neoliberal economic policies – effectively locks the relative poor out of political power. Such lockout breaches the legitimacy constraint on a liberal constitutional democracy. Neoliberal democracies, sooner or later, become plutocracies. This possibility should concern not only liberal political theory but also liberal constitutionalism. The usual objections to a constitutional concern with gross inequality and plutocracy – based on concerns relating to transparency, counter-majoritarianism and flexibility – are useful design instructions, but do not rule out the constitutionalisation of egalitarian and anti-plutocratic norms. A whole panoply of legal and political constitutional measures – already familiar to or incrementally developed from liberal constitutional thought and practice worldwide – could be marshalled to effectively promote material equality and resist plutocracy. These measures – documented to map the possibilities rather than as a manifesto – seek either to prevent material inequality from becoming excessive or to prevent its conversion into political inequality. Good constitutional design, depending on the context, is likely to deploy several tools from both these toolboxes.
Highlights
Liberal-democratic constitutional discourse has failed the poor
Contrary to the views of the pre-eminent prophet of liberal thought quoted in the epigraph to this article,[123] many people still believe that capitalism is compatible with liberalism, but may even be required by the latter’s protection of private property
Rawls had ruled out both state socialism and capitalism as incompatible with liberalism, he identified two different economic models as being most respectful of liberal guarantees: (i) liberal socialism, where economic power is dispersed among worker-run firms functioning in a competitive market, and (ii) propertyowning democracy, where background institutions ensure that ownership of wealth and capital are dispersed in society rather than concentrated in a few.[124]
Summary
Liberal-democratic constitutional discourse has failed the poor. Not so much those who are poor in an absolute sense, i.e. those who lack reasonable access to basic human needs such as food, security, water, shelter, education and warmth.[2]. The movement from plutocracy to democracy is extremely difficult This enduring lockout of the relative poor from political power seriously undermines the legitimacy of a liberal constitution. Is the case even if the poor do not think there is any problem with their political lockout (or, do not believe they are locked out) – the legitimacy problem is an objective concern that exists because of the fact of the poor are locked out of power, whether or not they (or others) believe that to be the case It seems, that liberal democracies are forever at risk of becoming plutocracies, which in turn may become vulnerable to populist revolts and authoritarianism. This is why the problem of gross material inequality is a constitutional problem – it fundamentally alters the very nature and legitimacy of state power
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
