Distributive justice --why does it matter?

Distributive equality encompasses philosophical concepts about the manner in which to best distribute “goods” so that every person has some degree of material security, without depriving others of such (Gosepath, 2011). While “simple equality” means everyone has the exact same amount, which is not possible, distributive equality takes into consideration individual choices and conditional permutations that would affect the amount any one person would have accessible (Gosepath, 2011). Hence, equal opportunity as a “prescriptive” form of equality grants every person a basic right to expect that he or she will not be restrained from attempting to obtain that which is possible, according to their individual capabilities; egalitarians also would see that “basic life conditions” would be granted, so that every person is able to take advantage of their opportunities (Gosepath, 2011). Whether or not a person is entitled to minimal goods and the security that entails, and the conditions under which this is to be apportioned by society, are issues that are explored by different perspectives of distributive equality.

In International Relations, theorists attempt to explain the growing incidence of intra state conflict by examining the absence of distributive equality and its consequences. Edward Azar (1991) explored the causes of   “protracted social conflict” (PSC), deeming that it results from “the prolonged and often violent struggle by communal groups for such basic needs as security, recognition and acceptance, fair access to political institutions and economic participation” ( as cited in Ramsbotham, Woodhouse, & Miall, 2005, p. 84). This “deprivation of human needs” (p. 86) is at the core of ongoing conflicts such as between the Tamil and the Sinhalese of Sri Lanka, where one ethnic group has historically repressed and deprived another of their ability to function and flourish within the society (Sri Lanka Crisis History, 2011). The Sinhalese have maneuvered over the years to deprive the Tamil of political power, education, land and opportunity, until they provoked an insurrection (Sri Lanka Crisis History, 2011). This conflict has endured for more than two decades;  unfortunately,after it had supposedly been settled with international intervention, the Sinhalese leadership has reverted to behaviors that originally incited the violence (Sri Lanka Crisis History, 2011). 

Resolving such conflicts where a ‘crisis of legitimacy’ exists because one group has successfully seized power and is monopolizing resources is difficult. The United Nations cannot intervene in every conflict and enforce distributive equality; this must be a “prescriptive” norm, where the population integrates the concepts of equality and enforces them within their own societies. Because democratic governance is based upon these principles, one of the most successful approaches has been to assist nations in instituting democracy and gradually adopting the principles it enshrines. Education is the foundation; this is where my focus lies, in assisting developing nations create systems that allow every individual, male or female, regardless of ethnicity, achieve the ideal of equality and its consequent benefits. Distributive equality is critical for the resolution of protracted social conflicts, and education is at its core.

Gosepath, S. (2011, Spring ). Equality. Retrieved January 2012, from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: http://plato.stanford.edy/archives/spr2011/entries/equality/

Ramsbotham, O., Woodhouse, T., & Miall, H. (2005). Contemporary Conflict Resolution. Cambridge: Polity.

Sri Lanka Crisis History. (2011, January). Retrieved May 22, 2011, from Crisis Group: http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/key-issues/research-resources/conflict-histories/sri-lanka.aspx