Oops, sorry for two posts: To address the specifics of your post, which I meant to do.
If social inequality is the main question, then it may be a partisan issue, because there will be a spread of opinions in the society of what is desirable, and at some level of approximation, the adoption of positions by parties provides a way to sort out how that spectrum will organize to come to a decision. Mechanisms for qualitative change presumably often originate as partisan issues, and then become mainstream if one party can hold them long enough that they become inculcated.
If the question of the gap between the claims of the law and the reality of the law is the issue, then that would more naturally be a party-independent question, since any party depends to some extent on the existence of "rules of the game", and would on some occasions have reason to object if there are no rules.
Of course, I understand that I also make these distinctions as if they were clearer than they are in practice, but I think they are a starting point from which one could try to sort out the mess and categorize a bit.
E ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
