“We are all equal – we are all different.”

It is not difficult to agree with the second part of these statements, that we are all different, that is, that we are not the same: each of us has different colors, different sizes, but also, more importantly, we have different abilities, different skills, different talents. So, insisting on our differences seems relatively easy. But what about the first part of these statements? Why should we all be equal?
“There can be no society between unequals,” wrote Mary Wollstonecraft, meaning that within any group there must be equality among its members for that group to function properly. There must be equality in school and in the family, there must be equality in the community and in society at large.

How is the concept of equality or inequality understood here?

ΤThe issue of equality is one of the oldest issues and is always of interest to us in relation to the political and social context or within the context of justice. First, therefore, we talk about the equality of citizens, which is, by definition, directly related to the established political system.
As Aristotle already teaches us, based on his typology of political systems, in a democratic system all citizens have the same value and participate equally in the goods of society. Here, therefore, equality concerns all citizens before the law and in relation to goods.
On the other hand, in an oligarchic regime, the criterion for the value of citizens is not generalized, but depends on their wealth and economic power, thus creating different political and social groups which, by definition, are not completely equal to each other.
It does not seem particularly difficult to argue that we are all different. However, we are equal within our social and political reality.
But how is this reflected in practice in representative democracy, where at least economic differences are obvious? What does it mean to be equal but different at the social and political level? Here, the answer that we have different sizes, ages, or hair colors certainly does not seem to fit. However, the fact that we come from different family backgrounds, with different economic possibilities, for example, or different levels of education, seems more relevant.
Where, then, do we find equality within this framework?
The social and economic differences between citizens are a given. However, this does not mean that the richest or most capable have more rights than the rest. Therefore, all citizens certainly have equal rights and are thus equal in terms of rights.
It is Hobbes who introduces this new dimension to the social and political equality of human beings.
Hobbes introduces a new fact into the discussion: the primary instinct of self-preservation found in all human beings.
With this new fact, people cannot be equal only in relation to goods or before the law, but also in relation to the supreme good of life itself. All people must have an equal opportunity to live: to live without fear for their lives, without having to constantly defend themselves against others who may be stronger or more capable than them. For this to happen, peace must prevail in society and the authorities must ensure it by enacting appropriate laws.
The most classic approach to equality among citizens – and the oldest – is that which places equality in the same context as justice. From Aristotle’s discussion of distributive (and corrective) justice, where goods and wealth are distributed to each citizen according to their value, to liberal equality of opportunity and lifestyle, which is determined and corrected by legislative regulations or social reforms, equality and justice are closely linked at this level.
“The first person who, having enclosed a piece of land, thought to say, ‘This is mine,’ and found people naive enough to believe him, was the true founder of civil society. […] [The] excessive ambition, the intense desire to increase one’s relative wealth, not so much out of real need as to surpass others, engenders in all people a dark tendency to harm one another, a hidden jealousy, which becomes even more dangerous since, for greater security, it often takes on the mask of kindness. In short, competition and rivalry on the one hand, conflict of interests on the other, and always the hidden desire for gain at the expense of others, all these evils are the first consequence of property and its inseparable companion, inequality.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau, On the Origin of Inequality Among Men, trans. M. Alexiou-Kanagini, ed. Synghroni Epohi, Athens 2010, pp. 113, 126.
The relationship between justice and equality also raises the question of the political system, since citizens are treated differently in a democratic regime than in an oligarchic regime. Here, justice takes on a political dimension and we are now talking about the relationship between political justice and the equality of free citizens.
“Any inequality within democracy must come from the nature of democracy itself and from the principle of equality. For example, there is a fear that people who need steady work to live would become excessively poor if they took up a public office or that they would neglect their duties; that craftsmen would become lazy; that the numerous unfree would become more powerful than the old citizens. In this case, equality among citizens may be removed within democracy for the benefit of democracy. But we are removing only an apparent equality: because a man ruined by the exercise of an office would be in a worse situation than other citizens; and that same man, being obliged to neglect his duties, would reduce other citizens to a situation worse than his own; and so on.
Montesquieu, The Spirit of the Laws, trans. K. Papagiorgis and P. Kondylis, ed. Gnosi, Athens 1994, p. 162.
“This is not a linguistic or conceptual issue. No definition of the word ‘equal’ or analysis of how the word is used in everyday language is required. We need to distinguish between different conceptions of equality in order to decide which of these conceptions (or which combination of them) expresses an attractive political ideal, if indeed any does. This mental exercise can be described somewhat differently, using a distinction I have adopted in other contexts.
It is different to treat people equally and to treat them as equals. Someone who argues that people should be more equal in terms of income is claiming that a community that achieves income equality truly treats people as equals. Someone who argues, on the other hand, that people should be equally happy provides a different and competing theory of what kind of society deserves that title. The question is, then: which of the many different theories of this kind is the best theory?
Ronald Dworkin, Equality, trans. G. Molyvas, ed. Polis, Athens 2006, pp. 91-92.
That we are all equal before the law is something we now take for granted and consider self-evident. According to this view, all citizens are equal before the law, before justice, which applies equally to all without exception. Everyone is equal before the law regardless of race, gender, color, national origin, ethnicity, religion, ability, without discrimination of any kind. This is, moreover, Article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The first, main, and obvious interpretation of this point is that violations of the law are judged equally or, in other words, that the law applies equally to all citizens of a modern democratic society. The law will apply equally to someone who is rich and someone who is poor, to someone who is famous and distinguished, as well as to an ordinary person. For example, if a famous and popular actor, singer, or businessman breaks the law, they will be tried under the same laws as someone who is not known beyond their social circle.
In this case, however, we see the negative definition of equality. Through this, we can also see the positive definition of Article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Because equality of all before the law does not only mean that the laws will be applied equally to offenders, but also that discrimination between citizens within the state or by institutions is prohibited. The law applies equally to all and protects all equally; there is no different law for women and a different law for men, no separate legislation for the poor and different legislation for the rich, no different law for different ethnic or religious communities living within the state.
Of course, as we know, the development of this equality has been ongoing throughout history, progressing and developing over time. A classic example of this is that in ancient Greek democracy, only a few citizens had the right to vote, all of whom were men and more or less wealthy.
But we do not need to look far back in time to see the steps democracy has taken towards the spread of equality. We need only think of women’s suffrage or the abolition of slavery, both achievements of the modern era.
Equality before the law is only fulfilled when it is based on the social equality of all people. It is also important to emphasize that it refers to a specific historical moment and is not a general, timeless idea.
It is also worth noting here that equality of all before the law not only promotes the equality of citizens, but is above all a commitment by the state itself towards its citizens, a commitment to uphold and promote equality, not to grant privileges based on interests, and not to restrict individuals or groups from acting freely within the state.

Article 20 – Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Equality before the law: All persons are equal before the law.