“A just world order is perhaps best seen as a society of peoples, each people maintaining a well-ordered and decent political (domestic) regime, not necessarily democratic but fully respecting basic human rights.”
John Rawls, Justice as Fairness (2003)
One of the greatest challenges in a democratic society is the equally distribution of resources among corresponding geographic entities. On a national scale, countries may adopt socialist policies to ensure that every citizen has a minimum standard of living, as with countries that have universal healthcare and entirely public education systems — this type of policy aims to lessen the gap in opportunity that can result from the unequal distribution of wealth. In other countries, constitutions places a positive legal obligations on government to provide for social amenities and provide substantive redress and or remedies in the event there is failure to act accordingly. This is called social justice.
Social justice is defined as “promoting a just society by challenging injustice and valuing diversity.” It exists when “all people share a common humanity and therefore have a right to equitable treatment, support for their human rights, and a fair allocation of community resources.” Social justice is generally equated with the notion of equality or equal opportunity in society. Although equality is undeniably part of social justice, the meaning of social justice is actually much broader (Scherlen and Robinson, 2008).
Rawls (2003) set out to sketch a theory of social justice that would answer the questions: “once we view a democratic society as a fair system of social cooperation between citizens regarded as free and equal, what principles are most appropriate to it?” and “…which principles are most appropriate for a democratic society that not only professes but wants to take seriously … that citizens are free and equal, and tries to realize that idea in its main institutions?” Rawls attempts to answer “[w]hat would a just democratic society be like under reasonably favourable by still possible historical conditions, conditions allowed by the laws and tendencies of the social world?”
Just because Rawls’ conception of social justice values equality, this does not mean that equal outcomes will be achieved in society, or that they even can be. In fact, Rawls’ second principle asserts that inequalities in society are acceptable as long as they meet two conditions. First, as per the “equal opportunity principle,” inequalities are acceptable if every person in society has a reasonable chance of obtaining the positions that lead to the inequalities. An example would be equal opportunity to achieve any job. Rawls (2003: 43) specifies that “fair equality of opportunity” requires “not merely that public offices and social positions open in the formal sense, but that all should have a fair chance to attain them.”
Social justice deals with the distribution of good (advantages) and bad (disadvantages) in society, and more specifically with how these things should be distributed within society. Further, social justice is concerned with the ways that resources are allocated to people by social institutions. Many years later the disparities within our society in terms of resource allocation leave a lot to be desired. After road mishaps where lives have been lost many schools still transport children in open trucks particularly in our marginalised and weaker communities.
Resourcing marginally excluded and weaker communities
