THE TREACHEROUS TRAP OF FREEBIES

ABSTRACT

Freebies refer to anything that is free of cost. Political parties promise free electricity and water, as well as monthly allowances for unemployed, daily wage workers, and women, as well as equipment such as computers and smartphones, in order to win people's support. With assembly elections in five states, politicians have once again used the instrument of freebies to win voters. Is the free-rider model of governance likely to have long-term consequences? Election campaigns in India have developed over time to maximise votes by employing a variety of techniques. Nobody could have predicted in 1967, when Annadurai promised to provide the needy rice at a ridiculously low price, that this welfare programme would balloon into a monstrosity, with political parties distributing washing machines, television sets, mangalsutras, and other items throughout Tamil Nadu. This free-for-all government paradigm has virulently grown across India's political spectrum, aided by poverty, illiteracy, and ignorance among the Indian people. Every time elections are announced, parties aim to entice people with a fresh set of materialistic and false promises, rather than asking for votes on the basis of their performance. Now that the Supreme Court has accepted Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay's petition against the misuse of election promises, it's more important than ever to grasp the dangers of freebie politics. 

Keywords: Free, Gifts, Voting, Fraud, Election, Policy, Manifesto

INTRODUCTION

The concept of competitive freebie politics raises numerous concerns regarding the political process's integrity. Giving away such 'gifts' is almost the same as buying votes, and it is a scam on taxpayers (both direct and indirect taxation) who faithfully pay taxes with the expectation that they will be used for nation building.

Under the guise of income redistribution and bridging massive economic disparities, political parties try to justify handing out handouts. They do not, however, address the problem of the measures' long-term viability. In an article, certain methods, according to Francois Bourguignon, may produce immediate gains but do not alleviate the problem of poverty in the long run. Other factors, such as access to good education and healthcare, lay the groundwork for a fair level of living. The existing techniques used by parties may provide temporary gratification, but they are not a solution to the country's problems.

Arguments in Favor of Freebies: 

They're Important for Meeting Expectations: In a country like India, where states have (or don't have) a particular level of development, people have expectations that are addressed by such promises of freebies.

Furthermore, there are similar expectations when people of adjacent states receive freebies.

Aids Least Developed Countries: Such freebies become a requirement in states with a lower level of development and a bigger proportion of the population living in poverty, and it becomes imperative to provide such subsidies to the people for their own upliftment.

This strategy has a distinctive aspect in that it is primarily used by parties in state elections rather than national elections, with the exception of the 2019 general elections, when the BJP and the Congress competed for votes from farmers and the poor. Both offered an annual cash transfer of Rs. 6,000 and Rs. 72,000, respectively. A review of the manifestos produced by political parties over the last five years reveals this pattern. Perhaps this is because parties believe that voters vote on topics such as national security and corruption during parliamentary elections, whereas state elections are more focused on caste, class, and religion politics, and they strive to gain an advantage by handing out goodies. As a result of this approach, little pockets of underdevelopment have emerged, making it simple to deceive the naive electorate with such promises.

Another concern that has recently surfaced is that political parties are increasingly targeting a broader segment of the public, including those who have the financial wherewithal to obtain the promised articles. Adopting such policies does not pass the Constitution's reasonable categorization requirement, and it cannot be justified in the name of economic redistribution. Another issue with poll promises is that parties do not conduct sufficient research. Many parties claim to announce their manifestos after undertaking grassroots consultations, but they don't back up their claims with research findings. For example, none of the major political parties has explained how they determined what policies were needed for a specific state. The lack of transparency in the creation of manifestos, as well as the exclusion of stakeholders, bode ill for our democracy.

WHAT DOES THE LAW SAY?

On 123 of the Representation of Peoples Act [RP ACT], a petition was brought in the Supreme Court in 2013 to declare free gifts as "corrupt practises." The Supreme Court refused to call it "corrupt practise" because of the following reasons:

• All of the promises given cannot be classified as "freebies." Such a classification would be incorrect.
• The RP Act only applies in cases when a candidate employs corrupt techniques to influence a voter.
• Because the laws relating to corrupt conduct are penal in nature, they must be interpreted sternly. 
• The court stated that only the parliament, not the Supreme Court, has the authority to declare certain activities to be corrupt.

The court did, however, order the Election Commission [EC] to develop guidelines to prevent the misuse of taxpayer funds. At the same time, it requested that the legislature draught policies in this area. While researching other nations' electoral processes, the EC discovered that Bhutan, Mexico, and many other Western European countries have mechanisms in place to prevent the exploitation of poll promises.

 These indicators range from the manifesto's legal enforceability to the manifesto's auditability. Unfortunately, due to a lack of consensus among political parties, neither the EC nor the legislature was able to develop any specific rules. This demonstrates the major parties' indifference to election reform. The EC, the Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs, and the other defendants were strongly criticised by the Madras High Court in 2016 for failing to stop this election conduct.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This research/ analysis show that how freebies during elections can be dangerous and harmful for the government of the country. If one chooses the upcoming government only on the basis of what free things will they be getting rather than on deciding on the basis of what works have they done in the past five years, can be dangerous. 

DATA COLLECTION METHOD USED

The data collection method used in this analysis is referring to the documents and records.

CONCLUSION

Freebie politics isn't just about economic austerity; it's also about political accountability and awareness. The first thing that must be abandoned is the obscurity that surrounds the manifesto-making process. The ECI should examine the following actions:

• All research is completed, and minutes from discussions with various stakeholders are included in the manifesto.
• Making the manifestos public at least two months before the elections.
• Political parties should provide a clear description of how they plan to fund the implementation of their election pledges. This could be submitted to more audits.
• Failure to comply with the foregoing standards may result in sanctions being imposed by the electoral commission.

These policies will not only put a stop to competitive freebie politics, but they will also give voters the information they need to make an informed decision. A well-informed and engaged electorate is a valuable asset to democracy, and we must use this opportunity. Apart from debunking the notion of the "free lunch," we must recognise the folly of sops, as Will Leamon put it, "sooner or later there will be a penalty for the freebies."

AUTHOR’S CONTENTION

According to the author, the following points must be kept in mind:

• Better Policy Reach: • Better Policy Reach: The parties' intended economic policies or development models must be articulated clearly and effectively.

In addition, the parties should have (and offer) a thorough understanding of the economics and spending implications of such measures.

• Demand-Based Freebies: India is a large country, and there are still a great number of people living in poverty.

It is also critical that all people are included in the country's development agenda.

Offering reasonable and practical freebies or subsidies that can be easily accommodated in a state's budget causes little harm and can be leveraged.

• Differentiating Subsidies from Freebies: There is a need to understand the economic implications of freebies and how they relate to public money.

 It's also important to distinguish between subsidies and freebies, because subsidies are justified and explicitly targeted benefits that come from demand.

• Awareness Among People: People should be aware of the harm they are doing when they sell their votes for gifts. If people do not oppose this,, they cannot expect capable leaders.