Swaying voters

The Supreme Court’s ruling that the offer of freebies to voters in the election manifestos of political parties does not amount to corruption or an offence under the Representation of People Act has cleared such handouts of the charge of illegality.

But, paradoxically, the court disapproves of the practice, going to the extent of declaring that the freebies will shake the roots of free and fair elections, and has called upon the Election Commission to frame guidelines on them in its code of conduct for elections. There may not be an easy practical way out of this contradiction, even if the EC starts working on the court’s directive. This is because, as the court has noted, all that go by the name of freebies are not bad and wasteful, and cannot be regarded as going against the public interest. Parties have the right to promise them as part of legitimate politics, and governments have the power to finance them through legislation. There is also no legal infirmity in a political party making a promise, because under the law only candidates are barred from doing so in a way that vitiates the election process.

It is true that competitive populism is increasing among political parties, which want to outdo one another with more and more and better and better promises to the people. But the difference between a promise and corruption is very thin. For example, the offer of cheap rice or a television set may be taken as a welfare measure or an act of bribe, depending on the criteria used for the judgment  or the political position of the person who makes the judgment. The court found it was not the right forum to take a decision on this. The EC also is not, and laws and norms may not always be good enough to distinguish a policy measure from an electoral bribe and to regulate the offer of freebies.

The basic assumption in a democracy is that voters can take their own decisions. It is being unfair to the voters to think that they will be swayed by the promise of goodies by political parties and candidates and are unable to distinguish between a welfare measure and an inducement. The courts or the Election Commission is not the right judge in a matter which involves legality, morality, politics and even subjective feelings. It is best that the issue is left to the people to decide through their votes.