As political parties compete to offer freebies, who will foot the bill?

The April 15 announcement by Himachal Pradesh Chief Minister Jairam Thakur regarding waiver of electricity and water charges for certain sections and granting travel concessions to women on the occasion of state foundation day was a subtle reminder that elections in the hill state are approaching.

Himachal Pradesh is scheduled to elect a new government by the end of this year, and the incumbent Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government would go all out to retain power in the hill state.

For the past few decades, politics in the Himachal Pradesh revolved around the Congress and the BJP, but this time around the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) is threatening to disturb this cosy arrangement just as it did in neighbouring Punjab a couple of months ago.

Buoyed by the stupendous electoral success, AAP began preparations in earnest and charged the BJP government announcement of free power, no water bills for rural areas, and 50 percent concessions for women travelling on state transport buses as taking a leaf out of the AAP book.

While political parties can claim ownership of the idea, the larger question that resurfaces is how can governments with perennial problems of revenue deficit underwrite the cost! A back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests the Himachal Pradesh concessions would cost approximately between Rs 90-120 crore.

Ironically, these subsidies came barely a fortnight after top bureaucrats in a review meeting with Prime Minister Narendra Modi raised red-flags over the practices of freebies or populist initiatives that could create a situation that countries such as Sri Lanka or Greece are facing.

Now, it is almost given that political parties across the spectrum promise grandiose schemes and populist measures to woo the voters. Recently AAP in Punjab decided that from July 1 each household will get 300 units of free domestic power. Since it came to office in 1997, the then Shiromani Akali Dal government offered free electricity for the agriculture sector, a move first criticised by the Congress but subsequently replicated by the party in other states.

It is a fact that once subsidies are built into the system, governments irrespective of any party realise it is difficult to remove or do away with populist schemes introduced by its political opponent. Historically some of the schemes have now become part of the Union government schemes with healthy participation of states modelled to reflect the concept of a welfare state.

Take for instance, the mid-day meal scheme introduced in the mid-1950s by then Congress Chief Minister K Kamaraj in Tamil Nadu. The idea was to attract children to attend schools and study, with those from underprivileged classes assured of at least one full meal in a day. Over the years, the idea blossomed and there are studies connecting the rise in rate of literacy and attendance to the mid-day meal.

Similarly, in the 1980s, Telugu film star NT Rama Rao, who was challenging the Congress government in the then undivided Andhra Pradesh came up with a plan of providing one kilogram of rice for Rs 2. The Congress was quick to deride the announcement. As days rolled by, then Chief Minister K Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy decided that people would get rice at a rate which was 10 paise cheaper than the Rs 2 per kilogram promise by NTR. Implementing the scheme just days before the assembly elections without adequate delivery infrastructure made little impact. Over the years, the scheme of providing rice/foodgrains at cheaper rates has found its way into many state government schemes, and became a mainstay.

These two cases reflect the larger public good through such welfare measures. The rise in literacy rates, provision of nutritious mid-day meals as also foodgrains at lower rates have the potential of building a healthy and knowledge-based society which in the long run contribute to development and economy. On the other hand, the cost of converting these schemes into reality is a heavy outgo with states finding it difficult to close the large gap between expenditure and revenue. Can the promise of free power, subsidised travel, and freebies in the form of computers, mobile phones, et all make similar contributions?

Recently, the Election Commission of India told the Supreme Court it cannot control political parties from promising freebies. It would be an overreach without any legal provisions to back it up, and the financial impact on the health of the state economy is to be decided by the voter. The poll body’s response came after it received a notice from the apex court on a public interest litigation.

Almost a decade ago, on the directions of the Supreme Court the election commission in consultation with political parties inserted a paragraph in the Model Code of Conduct relating to manifestoes that among other things mentioned the document shall not contain anything repugnant to the ideals and principles enshrined in the Constitution. While noting that the Directive Principles of State Policy in the Constitution enjoin upon the State to frame welfare measures for the citizens, political parties should avoid making those promises which are likely to vitiate the purity of the election process or exert undue influence on the voters in exercising their franchise.

It also noted that such an announcement in the manifesto should indicate the ways and means to meet financial requirements for it. But then the model code is an agreement by parties which everyone is expected to abide by. As the saying goes: there ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

K V Prasad is a senior Delhi-based journalist. 

Views are personal and do not represent the stand of this publication.