With several state elections underway, the expansive welfare agenda by political parties has been condemned by much of the intellectual class. The Indian Express in its editorial (‘Reckless Promises’, November 18) rued “reckless election promises” by […] parties engaged in competitive populism [in a] fiscal race to the bottom”.
Elite condemnation of “fiscally irresponsible freebies” is a continuing strand in our national discourse. The Supreme Court held a series of hearings on a petition by BJP leader Ashwini Upadhyay to direct the Election Commission of India to bar and de-register political parties from promising “irrational freebies from public funds”. The bench headed by then Chief Justice N V Ramana seemed to agree with the premise intoning that “freebies may create a situation wherein the State Government cannot provide basic amenities due to lack of funds”. The RBI, too, highlighted the “growing preference for distribution of ‘freebies’” as a new source of “risk” to state finances.
A critique of non-merit giveaways is not necessarily anti-poor. However, the determination of what constitutes a public good versus a freebie is itself a political question and subject of democratic contestation. The only point which can be conceded right away is that state finances are finite and thus all expenditure must be subjected to a comprehensive review of relevant trade-offs.
However, this debate raises an important question: Why, if “freebies” are so wasteful, do political parties succumb to them? This is a complex question but is often glossed over with disparagement for the political class. There are many reasons, but part of the answer has to do with the twin challenges of mass communication along with the ability to control execution of government schemes while in power.
An under-appreciated aspect of electoral politics is the challenge of mass communication. The primary job of any political party is to capture state power. This requires winning elections by aggregating votes one by one. In an election, individual votes are fungible but every single vote counts. In political campaigns, agreeing on the talking points is often a lesser challenge than the actual task of communication to the electorate at large. For this, parties are reliant on their own organisation and mass media — neither of which are suitable for complex or nuanced messaging. Political parties require simple messages like slogans which can remain consistent while moving through multiple layers of their own organisation. Direct benefits such as cash transfers or smartphones have the advantage of being easily communicated to and being understood by the electorate. Outcomes such as jobs for youth, doubling farmers’ incomes etc are also easily communicated and understood, but lack credibility for obvious reasons.
The second part of the problem is governance and execution when in power. Every chief minister wants to showcase development in his/her state. However, governance for “development” is complex and has many contingencies. It is not just that investments in health, education, law and order take time to fructify but that major changes are inevitably impeded by the political economy. Fixing any one major issue is not just about prioritisation at the highest level but also the ability to recalibrate the political economy without losing power. On the other hand, building infrastructure or cash transfers are relatively easier. It thus makes political sense to earmark a part of the state budget for direct benefits to ensure that each voter is touched in a positive and tangible manner.
While practical constraints explain the enduring appeal of these benefits, excessive reliance on them inevitably corrodes the party platform. The “post-fact redistribution through state coffers” nature of these benefits make it difficult to link individual benefits to a coherent ideological framework other than the amorphous “empowerment” trope. The primacy of direct pecuniary benefits in political campaigns is itself an indication of the depletion of the party platform. The absence of an ideological framework leads to a fungible transactional arrangement between the electorate and political parties, requiring the deployment of progressively larger benefits with each passing election. Direct benefits are a legitimate aspect of the dialectical process of building a political mandate; they may also have a special salience when most party platforms lack connectivity with the electorate. However, party leaders allowing these benefits to supplant other aspects of the party platform do so at their own peril.
The writer is the executive director of Future of India Foundation
Direct benefits are a legitimate aspect of building a political mandate
11
6
23.11.2023
With several state elections underway, the expansive welfare agenda by political parties has been condemned by much of the intellectual class. The Indian Express in its editorial (‘Reckless Promises’, November 18) rued “reckless election promises” by […] parties engaged in competitive populism [in a] fiscal race to the bottom”.
Elite condemnation of “fiscally irresponsible freebies” is a continuing strand in our national discourse. The Supreme Court held a series of hearings on a petition by BJP leader Ashwini Upadhyay to direct the Election Commission of India to bar and de-register political parties from promising “irrational freebies from public funds”. The bench headed by then Chief Justice N V Ramana seemed to agree with the premise intoning that “freebies may create a situation wherein the State Government cannot provide basic amenities due to lack of funds”. The RBI, too, highlighted the “growing preference for distribution of ‘freebies’” as a new source of “risk” to state finances.
A critique of non-merit giveaways is not necessarily anti-poor. However, the determination of what constitutes a public good versus a........
© Indian Express
visit website
login
who are we?
contact us
qosheapp
Toi Staff
Gideon Levy
Belen Fernandez
Rami G Khouri
Donald Low
Mort Laitner
Ali Fathollah-Nejad
Nikkei Editorial
Michael Kwet
