‘IPO-isation’ of political manifestos ahead of polls: Why the Election Commission’s proposal on freebies is an overreach

A manifesto is much more than just a few promises here and there entailing financial costs; in a democracy, it is supposed to serve as a vision document with both subjective and objective elements. It is about the party’s convictions, and the salience it attaches to certain issues, so that people are wiser about its position and place in the social, economic and political landscape. Should this be put to regulatory scrutiny in a democracy where entry barriers to politics are already so high? Is it the place of the Election Commission of India, constitutionally entrusted with the conduct of free and fair elections, to curb political and economic imagination? What about the gains — tangible and intangible — these promises bring to their intended beneficiaries over time? And finally, is it even possible for the election watchdog to specify parameters for promises which do not have a financial cost? Like, for instance, reservations in jobs and education for a community.

It is not that the election watchdog does not know that given the stage of development India is in today — the levels of poverty, the scale of unemployment, and the huge inequality — welfarism will drive the political economy. It also knows for a fact that defining freebies is impossible, and terming any promise as an “irrational freebie” is fraught with contestation — for the record, the Election Commission did state in an affidavit to the Supreme Court that “irrational” and “freebie’ are subjective, and open to interpretation. A promise of one political party may be a freebie for another and vice versa.

Is a small waiver on an electricity bill for a poor person in Delhi a freebie? And free foodgrains to each poor person across the country, not a freebie? What about television sets for BPL families in Tamil Nadu back in the time of cable TV, or free internet or a mobile handset to reap the Digital India advantage today, a bicycle for girls so that they ride to study in states where schools are being merged for optimisation and thereby increasing distances, cash purse to a would-be mother for better nutrition, or some monthly income to the 70-year-old in a country, which doesn’t provide much in terms of social security?

The debate over freebie politics does not end, and the Election Commission knows it well, just like other statutory institutions such as the Reserve Bank of India and the Comptroller and Auditor General, and those not backed by law such as the Niti Aayog and the Finance Commission. It is not without reason that the Prime Minister set the cat among the pigeons in a public rally when he warned voters about the harmful effects of the revdi culture. That is the platform where politicians tear into the policies of their rivals, leaving the voters informed, or even confused, prompting a larger discussion within the electorate. If democracy is a contestation of ideas, free and fair elections would mean that political parties slug it out to debunk one idea over the other, and draw the voters’ attention with their own vision.

The Prime Minister belled the cat; it is to his political ingenuity that the issue — which hardly attracted public attention — gained traction. But the Modi-led central government itself stayed away from issuing any guidelines on freebies because doing so would have attracted huge political backlash from so many chief ministers. So did the RBI, the CAG and the Niti Aayog, all of which deal with states and the Centre, given their remit. The RBI does bring out a report on state finances and manages the market borrowings of states; the CAG audits state finances and flags discrepancies, and these are placed before the state assemblies and Parliament to be scrutinised by all, and the Niti Aayog works closely with states on larger macro policies; the Finance Commission decides on devolution of resources between the states and the Centre and has its own incentive/disincentive mechanism. Besides all this, states have enacted their own Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management Acts, with prescribed ceilings on deficits. The issue was discussed internally by all these institutions — they put their minds to this, but none thought it was their business.

As the freebie debate found its way into the Supreme Court, the Election Commission resisted being drawn into it citing a lack of powers over state policy making and even acknowledged in one of its affidavits that “freebies can have different impacts on society, economy, equity, depending upon the situation, context and time period”. It was seen as a prudent call.

For political parties to decide a priori which expenditure to cut, or which assets to monetise or sell, or borrow to what extent, for raising resources to fulfil a promise could trigger fears of it being the first step, just like in the case of a corporation. At the next level of voter disclosures, would rating agencies decide which of the political parties’ manifestos should get a BBB or a AAA rating? This may seem absurd today, but one never knows how the market evolves. Making such disclosures a part of the Model Code of Conduct may eventually put the onus of assessment of proformas submitted by political parties on the poll watchdog. Does the Election Commission want to extend itself thus?

pv.iyer@expressindia.com