The rise of welfare politics in a world of billionaires

From ballot boxes to street protests, citizens are rejecting systems that deepen inequality

Globally, a lingering discomfort among people is taking the form of discontent and expressing itself in different ways — from ballot boxes to the streets when elections become futile. Ordinary citizens do not prefer conflict, but are drawn into it through ideological apparatuses when crises become unmanageable for the State. Today, we see it at an unprecedented scale when bots can become Joseph Goebbels.

These are often tactics to divert public attention from real problems that plague society. The globally increasing wealth gap is one such problem.

The United States has seen the largest expansion of its billionaires in 2024, from 751 to 834. In 2023, the world's richest 1% held 47.5% of all the world's wealth. The ultra high net worth individuals or UHNIs (those with more than $30 million) are around 0.003% of the world’s population but own 6.5% of the global wealth. At the other end of the spectrum, the poorest 50% account for just 12% of global carbon emissions, as against the world's richest 10% who account for around half of all emissions, and face just 3% of relative income losses.

The cascading impact of this inequality is declining living standards; and people cannot take it. This is seen in the victory of Catherine Connolly in Ireland, who called for a republic which “will never stand over the normalisation of genocide, or the normalisation of homelessness, or obscene waiting lists”. In the United Kingdom, over 600,000 people signed up for the mailing list of Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana’s Your Party, a party which promises, among other things greater focus on social justice.

Recent polls in the U.S. reveal growing support for a more welfare-focused alternative. In Virginia, the victories of Abigail Spanberger (governor), Ghazala Hashmi (lieutenant governor), and Jay Jones (attorney general) point to this trend. Their campaign focused on the fear of layoffs, and reduced access to healthcare, among other issues. In New Jersey, Mikie Sherrill won as governor after his campaign raised affordability as the central issue.

Democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani won the mayoral race for New York after promising to address the issues of high cost of living, growing homelessness, and increasing wealth gap. Many in Corporate America and the US President himself were relentless in their attacks on Mamdani — perhaps they feared he would take measures that would make New Yorkers’ lives easy.

Nearer home, figures by the Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics show that the rich-poor gap is widening in Bangladesh. Around 30% of the income generated in Bangladesh is concentrated within the top 5% of households. The top 10% of the wealthiest households in Bangladesh hold 40.92% of total income. According to the Nepal Economic Forum, the income of the richest 10% of Nepalis is more than three times that of the poorest 40%. Similarly, the richest 10% of Nepalis have more than 26 times the wealth of the poorest 40%.

Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, and Nepal saw mass uprisings where people took to the streets. The catalysts were immediate charges of corruption, or high inflation, but the actual causes were deep-seated economic reasons — unemployment, precarity, hunger, and poverty. The political forces tried to manage the anger through ideological apparatuses, but beyond a point, it became difficult to contain the anger. Irrespective of the consequences — and in all probability none of the new governments in these countries would resolve the actual consequences of neoliberal economy — one saw the masses agitate against economic policies and politics that worked against them. The masses drove out the incumbent political forces and chose those who echoed their angst.

Inequality in India today is much more than it was during colonial times. It is this inequality that has created the discomfort among people crying for employment, lowering the cost of living, more affordable and decent housing in cities, and better access to health and education. Protests against paper leaks or when they bring cities to a halt are indicators of how desperate the youth are for jobs.

A large part of the population barely has the means to survive, and politicians across the spectrum encourage welfare measures (which the urban educated elite call ‘freebies’) to contain the brewing anger among people. It is also proof that the neoliberal policies are not benefitting the masses. Such policies will only widen the income and wealth gap.

Mamdani’s victory is bad news for the unscrupulous corporates and politicians because it is a sign that the people are realising that politics as usual will not address their livelihood issues. It is the crisis of neoliberal policy-making. Radical pronouncements, even if they prove rhetorical, are indicators that a political success can be achieved if promises of welfarism are inbuilt into policy-making. Indian politicians do not have a blueprint. Promising gas cylinders at a lower price, and doling out cash are not measures that will solve the unemployment crisis or the precarity pervading the society.

Ravi Kumar is Associate Professor, Department of Sociology, South Asian University.

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.