Bribery or welfarism?

A mechanism to assess the economic impact of freebies is essential in the context of good governance

Since Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s announcement of the extension of the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Anna Yojana (PMGKAY), a free ration scheme launched in 2020 for the 80 crore National Food Security Act (NFSA) beneficiaries, till December 2028 at a rally in Chhattisgarh, there is speculation about whether this move aligns with Modi’s disapproval of freebie politics (revadi culture) or if it should be viewed as welfarism.

In 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that offering freebies to entice voters does not violate Section 123 (corrupt practices) of the Representation of People Act. After this verdict, political parties started bankrolling freebies in their public policy schemes. The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) in Delhi was among the pioneers, reaping electoral benefits from subsidising electricity, education, medicine, and others.

However, the apex court, recognising the economic impact of political parties promising freebies during election campaigns, suggested the formation of an apex body, including NITI Aayog, the Finance Commission, the ruling and opposition parties, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), and others, to propose controls on political parties’ freebie promises. The apex court was hearing a plea seeking direction to seize election symbols and deregister political parties that promised to distribute irrational freebies from public funds.

The trouble is, freebies have indeed been a great tool for electoral gains. The distribution of freebies, including cash, food grains, electricity, utensils, unemployment benefits, and even consumer goods, creates a chain reaction among political parties that do not dare to stop the practice of doling out handouts lest they fall out of favour of the electorate. They do not care to check if there are enough resources and a GDP base to sustain a public policy on freebies.

Despite Modi’s aversion to freebies, his party members, like Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan, refuse to follow suit, facing stiff competition from the Congress chief ministers in Rajasthan and Chhattisgarh. The SC issued notices last month to governments in Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan, the central government, and the Election Commission (EC) on a plea seeking comprehensive guidelines to bar political parties from distributing cash and other freebies at the expense of taxpayers.West Bengal, with nearly 30 schemes, exemplifies this trend. In one such scheme, the West Bengal Free Tablet Scheme 2023, around 9.5 lakh students from 36,000 government and government-aided secondary schools, 14,000 higher secondary schools, and more than 600 madrasas will get free tablets. Whether these tablets would be used as an educational or entertainment tool is not certain, but since only twelfth-grade students are the beneficiaries, who are on the verge of their voting age, the motive behind the move is questionable. While the Trinamool Congress (TMC) insists that each and every member of society would benefit from such schemes, the government run by it is riddled with corruption charges as many TMC bigwigs are languishing in jail. The party hopes the beneficiaries of the social welfare schemes—especially women and the rural population—will bail it out during elections. The state government employees, long agitating for a higher dearness allowance, claim that the social welfare schemes are run at their expense.

The line between welfarism and freebies was blurred by many worthies, such as C N Annadurai, M G Ramachandran or MGR, and M Karunanidhi and subsequently J Jayalalitha in Tamil Nadu and N T Rama Rao in then-undivided Andhra Pradesh, who nurtured strong electoral bases by rolling out popular schemes to distribute free goods such as cash, gold coins and jewels, electronic gadgets, and home accessories, besides food grains. Jayalalitha provided free laptops to all the students studying in state-run higher secondary schools or colleges, and in 2011, she announced free table fans, mixers, and grinders for the poor.

There is no law to stop non- economic or non-social development freebies, and as the apex court observed last year, political parties and individuals cannot be prevented from making poll promises aimed at fulfilling the constitutional mandate, warning that the term “freebie” should not be confused with genuine welfare measures. Referring to the MGNREGS, it said that given an opportunity, people will look for “dignified earnings.” Still, if freebies puts states in huge debt, they must be subjected to an outcome evaluation to judge the intended impact and target beneficiaries. Freebies or subsidies must not be left to the fancies of individuals or political parties. There must be an institutional mechanism to flag freebies that are not aimed at economic or social development and are thus financially risky. The debate on allurement and welfarism should consider the economic context, akin to reservation policies, acknowledging that freebies cannot be a permanent fixture in the political landscape.

(The writer is a Kolkata- based commentator on geopolitics, development and culture)