Opinion Promises, promises

Nearly eight months after the Supreme Court ordered the Election Commission to frame guidelines on what parties extravagantly promise to voters ahead of elections, the EC has incorporated a set of prescriptions in its model code of conduct. It has consulted a range of parties on the subject. Now, it requires manifestos to “reflect the rationale” of a specific promise, and also indicate how these promises will be funded. The Supreme Court’s judgment last July was on a petition that sought to declare Tamil Nadu’s big election blowouts on household items and welfare schemes for specific interest groups as “corrupt” acts. While the court stopped short of that declaration, its order to the EC stemmed from a sense that populist manifestos are irresponsible and parties must be made more accountable in their electoral appeals.

Well-meaning as it is, it is an unnecessary initiative on the EC’s part. Parties do not have to provide public justification on a private calculation or judgement call, and it is for voters to judge their priorities. It is not feasible to expect an informed financial plan for each promise, ahead of the party assuming power and working with the situation it inherits. While the EC’s action is gentler than the Supreme Court judgment that held all giveaways and big promises as a distortion of the electoral playing field, it implicitly demands that manifestos be realistic documents, rather than trusting the voter’s judgement, her capacity to tell the difference between a transparent bribe and a genuine social benefit. It misunderstands the compact between the voter and the party. While it can be argued that competitive populism can create unrealistic and unmanageable expectations from government, even fostering cynicism when these promises are not met, it is not up to the EC or any external arbiter to enforce correctives.

Advertisement

The EC enjoys tremendous public trust and credibility. Its model code of conduct, even though it lacks statutory force, has an indisputable legitimacy. This is largely because it is a restrained code, and does not venture into issuing dos and don’ts that are difficult to enforce or those that place excessive curbs on a party’s freedoms. It is essential for the EC to consider whether its contemplated actions actually advance fair and free elections, or stem from the misguided impulse of disciplining naughty parties.