Economic and political inequality
far less likely to become MPs, resulting in the economically disadvantaged being politically underrepresented. Those with less money in the UK are inevitably less likely and able to be involved in politics, both in voting and as MPs.
Contrastingly, Australia’s system of compulsory voting leads to high turnout across income groups, and its political institutions, such as preferential voting, are designed to support participation. In federal elections, turnout virtually always exceeds 90%, and income-based disparities are significantly lower than in countries like the UK or the USA (AEC, 2022). This would appear to disrupt the link between economic and political inequality. Yet even in Australia, political inequality in participation on the grounds of economic differences persists. Research shows that while turnout gaps are reduced, economic disadvantages continue to correlate with lower political efficacy, fewer opportunities for political engagement beyond voting, and limited access to representation (McAllister and Cameron, 2022). Low-income Australians, just as in the UK, are still underrepresented in Parliament for several systemic reasons. Moreover, compulsory voting ensures participation but not influence and as in other countries without very stringent regulation, where economic inequality exists, so too does political inequality. This demonstrates that even when formal participation is equalized, deeper economic divides continue to distort the quality of representation. Unless those divides are addressed directly, political inequality reappears: not through voter turnout, but in who gets listened to and who gets to lead. This further illustrates the inevitability of political inequality in economically unequal societies. Finally, a further mechanism by which economic inequality produces political inequality in democracies is through control of the media and information. In democracies, where public discourse is central to functioning, influence over what is debated, how it is framed, and who is heard carries significant political weight. The concentration of media ownership, particularly in private hands, allows wealthy individuals and corporations to shape political narratives in ways that reinforce their interests. The result is an information environment in which economic power translates into unequal voice. This is particularly evident, again, in the United States. A small number of conglomerates dominate the country’s traditional media landscape, and political messaging increasingly flows through privately owned digital platforms. Rupert Murdoch’s media empire, most notably including Fox News, has played a significant role in shaping political attitudes and electoral outcomes. More recently, digital platforms such as Facebook and Twitter/X, owned by Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk, respectively, have also become central to political communication. These platforms are driven by algorithmic content promotion and advertising revenue, both of which are heavily influenced by those with the financial resources to shape the flow of information (Brennan Center, 2024). During election periods, wealthy donors fund targeted online campaigns that influence voter perception on a scale far beyond traditional means. In such an environment, economic inequality facilitates asymmetrical influence over political debate and perception itself.
Finland is often cited as a counterexample. Its public broadcaster, Yleisradio (Yle), is required to provide impartial coverage and remains a trusted source of political information. Media regulation is comparatively strong, and political advertising is strictly controlled. These factors, along with high
141
Made with FlippingBook - PDF hosting