Latest news with #welfaresystem
Mail & Guardian
3 days ago
- Politics
- Mail & Guardian
The politics of the belly: Why poverty fuels, not suppresses, political engagement
Impoverished communities have a complicated relationship with political engagement, which is vital for their survival. (Delwyn Verasamy/M&G) Recently, during a benchmarking visit to Zambia, I met a group of women parliamentarians to discuss their work, the challenges they face and the changing dynamics of political leadership. One theme kept surfacing — the overwhelming personal demands they receive from their constituents. People frequently ask them to pay lobola, cover funeral costs, contribute to school fees or assist with a sick relative. One MP said, 'Sometimes it feels like I'm the community's bank, clinic and funeral home all in one.' Another, half-jokingly but with a trace of weariness, remarked, 'That's why most politicians die of hypertension.' And if a politician dares to say 'no'? The response is chilling in its casual threat: 'It's fine, we'll see you at the next election.' At first glance, this might seem like overreach. But it reflects a much deeper reality — when state institutions fail to meet basic needs, the politician becomes the de-facto welfare system. A few days after this visit, I came across The belly as political compass Across more than 35 African countries, Afrobarometer finds that people living with high poverty — meaning they frequently go without food, clean water or medical care — are not politically passive. In fact, they are more likely to vote, attend community meetings, contact leaders and feel emotionally connected to political parties than those who are better off. This disrupts the stereotype that poverty leads to apathy. On the contrary, the politics of the belly is a driver of participation, not silence. However, this participation must also be understood within the changing dynamics of political campaigning. In many contexts, poor people attend rallies and political events because of freebies — food parcels, T-shirts, transport or cash — which are handed out at these gatherings. These are not just political incentives, they have become survival mechanisms in communities where the state is absent or failing. In such cases, turnout and contact with political leaders might be less about political conviction and more about immediate relief. With elections hotly contested in countries like Malawi in September and Zambia next year, much of this contact is set to intensify. Poor people will attend multiple rallies not necessarily out of support, but to collect as many freebies as possible . Many voters openly say, 'Election season is our time to milk politicians.' This is why you will often see the same crowds moving from rally to rally , not because of shifting loyalties, but because it is a brief window of transactional gain in an otherwise extractive political economy . Moreover, there is a deeply skewed understanding of the role of MPs, who are increasingly viewed not as legislators or policymakers, but as providers of basic services and humanitarian support. This is clearly seen in Zimbabwe, where A similar pattern emerged in Malawi, where during a benchmarking visit in 2022, I spoke with In this context, political engagement becomes deeply transactional , with citizens anchoring their hopes and their survival to individual politicians, rather than to functioning institutions. What appears on the surface as high participation is often, in reality, a reflection of structural desperation. When survival is political Consider the numbers from the Afrobarometer 2025 Flagship Report: 74% of those with high poverty voted in the last election, slightly more than the 73% of those with no poverty; 43% of the poor feel close to a political party, compared to 31% of those without poverty; and They are more likely to attend community meetings (54% versus 30%), join others to raise issues (46% versus 33%) and contact leaders, particularly traditional authorities and local councillors. This tells us something crucial which is that poverty makes politics unavoidable. When the taps run dry, when the clinic is out of medicine and when school fees are beyond reach, politics is no longer abstract; it's a daily fight for dignity and survival. These findings resonate with broader research linking food insecurity and political action A 2025 While that study focused on post-conflict contexts, its insights speak to a wider truth of how hunger drives engagement. Whether through voting, protest or pressing local MPs for help, poor people participate because survival demands it. When food and dignity are at stake, politics becomes unavoidable. Protest as a last resort Even protest, often considered a high-risk form of political expression, is more common among the poor than the better-off. Afrobarometer data shows that 10% of people experiencing high poverty participated in protests or demonstrations, compared to 8% of those without poverty. At first glance, this might seem marginal but it becomes profound when understood in the context of fear, repression and survival. A 2007 Mpani writes that 'poor people are too concerned about survival to have time for leisure activities' and, in contexts of state violence, the risks of protesting — arrest, beatings and even death — often outweigh the perceived benefits. This challenges any simple reading of protest data. Low protest rates do not equal contentment; they often reflect fear, exhaustion or a strategic withdrawal from danger. Still, where protests do emerge from the most vulnerable, they are not just acts of resistance they are acts of courage. Beyond the myths What all this shows is that poor communities are deeply entangled in the political life of their countries. Their engagement might not always look like formal policy debate but it is real, potent and relentless. Civil society, development actors and political institutions must take note. These are not people who need to be 'brought into' politics. They are already there, calling MPs, mobilising neighbours, showing up at rallies and voting in elections. What they need is a state that functions, leadership that listens and systems that respond. Let the belly speak The Zambian MPs I met aren't just overwhelmed, they are standing at the faultline between institutional failure and public desperation. Their experience, backed by Afrobarometer's findings, shows us that poverty doesn't suppress political voice, it amplifies it. The politics of the belly does not silence, it demands to be heard. When survival itself becomes political, silence is not an option. If we want to build more inclusive democracies, we must stop overlooking the poor because they are already participating. The real question is whether anyone is listening. Nyasha Mcbride Mpani is the project leader for the Data for Governance Alliance project at the Institute of Justice and Reconciliation in Cape Town.
RNZ News
4 days ago
- Business
- RNZ News
The people working for $10 - and less
Even with living wage employment opportunities, some only earn between $8.78 and $10.65 an hour for additional hours worked. Photo: RNZ / Rebekah Parsons-King New Zealand needs to rethink how the welfare system interacts with tax - and how we approach "punishing" people who are on the benefit, a prominent economist says. Ganesh Ahirao said the marginal tax rates that people were earning when they shifted off income support, or took on more work at middle incomes, were much higher than those paid by higher-income people. He looked at a number of household scenarios to illustrate the point and said even with living wage employment opportunities available, people were only earning between $8.78 and $10.65 an hour for additional hours worked. Someone on a minimum wage would earn even less. The Living Wage is currently set at $27.80 per hour. In one case, a single person whom he referred to as Manaia, with no children, no student loan and paying rent of $415 a week for a one-bedroom flat in Wellington would receive the Jobseeker Support (JS) payment alongside Winter Energy Payment (WEP) and Accommodation Supplement (ASUP) totalling in the hand $592 per week. Six hours' work at the living wage would take income to just over $700 with those supports. "But thereafter, the reduction of JobSeeker - at the gut-punching rate of 70 cents for every extra dollar earned - slows in-the-hand increases to a snail's pace. Consequently, the effective marginal tax rate (EMTR) faced by Manaia soars into 80 percent-plus stratospheric territory," Ahirao said. In another case, a sole parent of two children paying $600 a week would receive the Sole Parent (SP) payment alongside WEP, the Family Tax Credit (FTC) component of Working for Families, and ASUP totalling $1047 per week. With six hours work at the living wage, the person's income would rise to nearly $1200. "But then the reductions in support payments brutally cut in. Firstly, the SP declines by 30 cents for every extra dollar earned and then after 10 hours per week by 70 cents per extra dollar earned. The resulting EMTR of 89.2 percent is pushed to 93.3 percent (after 14 hours per week) as FTC payments begin to decline at 27 cents for every dollar of other income. Another hit (at 24 hours per week) pushes the EMTR to 95 percent, as the ASUP also begins to decline (25 cents for every dollar of other income)," Ahirao said. If the person worked 40 hours a week they would receive $352 more than if they did not work at all. Ahirao said the tax and welfare systems needed to work together. "MSD does benefits and IRD does Working for Families and student loans… they have this separation there that needs opt brought together. "Abatement rates in the welfare system are not seen by the tax system. That's one element. "We also need to think seriously about our perspective on penalising people. It's a punitive-first approach welfare system. There is a belief out there that everyone should work, should be able to go to work and should take up work whenever they can. To a degree that's ok but then it goes to those who don't work are somehow at fault and should be penalised. That is the perspective to get past." He said many people out of work were not jobless by choice. There was little encouragement to work when the benefit was clawed back so quickly, he said. "You take away 70c in the dollar - there's a perspective that if we add on to their part-time income with jobseeker they're going to get too much, it's going to be too generous so we've got to claw it back… do we want to encourage people into the workforce or penalise people for not being in the workforce? "That's the mindset we need to get over before setting any other policies. That's a big shift in our thinking across the whole political spectrum." A universal basic income could be part of the conversation, he said. "I'm comfortable saying you have aright to an adequate income and that involves an obligation to contribute in society, make yourself available for work. You don't go from there to we're going to bash you with a whole lot of sanctions. You tweak the settings to make it as attractive as possible to contribute. A carrot rather than a stick approach." Ministry of Social Development general manager of welfare system and income support Fiona Carter-Giddings said the ministry's priority was getting people into work. "Between June 2024 and June 2025, 86,000 benefits were cancelled because the person found a job. "We're pleased New Zealanders continue to move off benefit and into work, despite challenging economic circumstances. When people are employed they have a higher income and more opportunities to improve their quality of life. "Government financial assistance generally reduces as other income increases, because New Zealand's welfare system targets support to people who need it the most. This is a long-standing principle of social security. "The ideal rate at which support should reduce involves trade-offs between income adequacy, incentives to work, and maintaining appropriate costs to the taxpayer. The welfare system is designed to balance these objectives, and it is an area of ongoing debate." Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
