Income Cleavage - China and Russia
In recent history, there has been no societal cleavage more influential than that of income cleavage. The duel between the rich and the poor prompted an entire political system – Communism – to emerge from the grime of the Gilded Age, and though history ultimately proved the belief unworkable, the political effects of income gaps still exist and are pronounced in two countries that once subscribed to Communism – the People’s Republic of China and the Russian Federation. Both countries continue to face serious problems with income cleavage that affect political participation in surprisingly similar manners.
In China, the income gap can be generally divided along the various geographical regions. The middle-upper class lives in urban areas, while the lower class – usually farmers, fishermen and herdsmen – primarily occupies rural areas. Of the 85 million members of the Communist Party, 24 million live in rural areas – a mere 28% of the party. Moreover, income gap affects political participation by skewing educational availability toward the upper-middle class. Though there is no official education requirement to join the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), there is a significant tendency to admit applicants with higher education, to the point that Chinese college students regularly receive invitations to join the CCP upon graduation. Youth recruitment programs also focus on educational requirements. Finally, an interesting news story discussed how the richest entrepreneur in China was in talks to join the Communist Party’s Central Committee. Ultimately, he was denied, though the occasion was still interesting as it demonstrated that only the rich (or those already in the Party) could join the Central Committee. Notably, high-ranking members of the Communist Party tend to be among China’s top ten richest lists.
Russia’s income gap has shown interesting similarities to China’s, particularly in its development. Like China, Russia emerged relatively recently from its Communist roots, and adopted a market economy. In the years immediately following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the instability of the economy allowed certain enterprising oligarchs to quickly take over the “most valuable assets” to take over markets that would quickly become highly sought after. These rich business magnates became extremely politically influential due to their tremendous wealth and control of markets like oil or the media. Thus, much like China, the richer individuals gained political prominence. The similarity runs even deeper, however. Much as in China, members of the dominant parties – typically the richer individuals – rig elections. Consequently, a good deal of political cynicism runs through the educated members of Russian society. Also like China, income inequality is very much divided along regional lines. During the Soviet Era, Stalin’s regime was only able to help industrialize certain regions. The ‘unreached’ areas have remained poor ever since, with some regions like the Ivanovo region having 40% of its population under the poverty line. The similarities end there, however.
Perhaps most interestingly, the poorer regions in Russia actually have a higher voter turnout than the richer regions. In the 1995 Russian presidential election, poorer and rural regions reported a voter turnout of 70% while urban areas reported a turnout of 61%. It is entirely possible that the lack of availability of education in Russian rural areas causes residents to place more belief in their political system, since cynicism typically resides among the educated. This is the exact opposite of China, in which urban/richer areas maintain more political involvement. In China’s case, the Internet is an integral aspect to political participation for the populace. Chinese social networking sites have exposed many a corrupt official and their doings, including bribery, sex scandals, murders, and simply swindling money. This need for the Internet has given Chinese urban residents a distinct advantage in political participation over their rural counterparts. Russia, meanwhile, uses the Internet as a political tool to a lesser extent, particularly since Russia is technically a democracy. This marks the largest difference between Russia and China’s political participation – the fact that Russia’s electoral system has dozens of parties and is democratic, while China’s political system has one party and is somewhat totalitarian.
Overall, however, both China and Russia share numerous similarities in terms of their income gaps. Both countries also saw the rise of such income inequality after emerging from communism, and in both cases, the inequality has affected political participation in one way or another, generally with the rich being more politically prominent. The issue is so deeply rooted in both societies that recovery even within the next several decades might be unlikely, though both states have attempted certain measures to begin to close the gap. Though not immediately successful, it is relatively certain that both Russia and China will put a focus on closing the income gap for their domestic policy in the future.