Introduction:
The term 'Freebie' is not new or unknown to the general public. This has long been the prevailing culture in Indian politics. We all are aware that political parties usually declare or promise during election time to provide free goods from grains, phones, laptops, television, wine and even basic things like electricity, water to the public in the name of Social programs just because , to attract or entice voters to vote for them. But we as citizens need to understand that there is a difference between real welfare programs and free programs. It is a common trend in India that competition among political parties to win elections leads them to announce such schemes, but the long-term effects of such schemes on the administration and economy of the state as well as the country are ignored. However, in some cases these announcements or promises have become quite successful. For example: a) The mid-day meal scheme started by K Kamaraj and expanded by MG Ramachandran in 1982 was first mocked by Delhi only to be adopted as a national scheme ten years later. b) NT Rama Rao's promise of rice at Rs 2 per kg is the original avatar of the current National Food Security Programme.
However, not every liberty program is successful, the motive of most liberty programs is to attract voters and get the maximum number of votes in order to win the election. Even before freedom programs were trendy, political parties used them to advertise subsidies to attract voters. For example, in 1967, DMK founder CN Annadurai promised a 4.5 kg bag of rice for Rs 1 if his party was elected to power. This promise helped his party win the election, but later the party could only provide a 1 kg bag of rice for Rs 1 instead. Later when the Freebie Culture started, in the 2006 state elections, the DMK party promised to distribute free color televisions, announced rice subsidies, offered 2 acres of land for the landless, free gas stoves and even cash. Figures from the time show that the DMK spent more than Rs 3,340 crore on 14-inch color televisions between 2006-2010. Its rival AIADMK spent over Rs 1,200 crore to procure 7,84,000 laptops for students in 2012-13 alone.
Effects of the Freebie Policy:
From the examples, it is clear that in some cases the Freebie programs have benefited the public while in some cases they have led to a drastic negative impact on the economy of the state which has adversely affected the general public.
Positive effects -
• Relief programs announced during natural disasters or pandemics, such as distribution of free medicine, rations or cash to victims, are actually meant for the welfare of citizens.
• Systems such as the public distribution system, employment guarantee systems, education support and increased health spending, especially during the pandemic. These contribute significantly to increasing the productive capacity of the population and help build a healthier and stronger workforce, which is an essential part of any growth strategy.
• Many states promise sewing machines, cycles, etc. for women, which are bought out of budget revenue, but contribute to the sales of the manufacturing industries, thereby strengthening the industries.
• In less developed states, free programs are sometimes necessary to uplift the public in the state.
Negative Effects-
• Freebie programs tend to make citizens irresponsible because they stop analyzing the long-term benefits and agendas of the various parties. Citizens are unduly influenced by these free programs and make wrong decisions. A deserving candidate is often left behind and the second to announce is elected to entice voters.
• The announcement of Freebie Schemes and their implementation after elections often has a drastic impact on the economy of the state as well as the country. The provision of free electricity, water, public transport, etc. potentially undermines the credit culture and distorts prices through cross-subsidies, thereby distorting incentives for private investment.
• Moreover, the goods distributed under these programs come from the money of the taxpayers themselves. It's like putting money in your left pocket and taking money out of your right pocket.
According to statistics, the state government's expenditure on subsidies increased by 12.9% in 2020-21 and 11.2% in 2021-22. Statistics show that Gujarat, Punjab and Chhattisgarh spend more than 10% of their revenue on subsidies which are actually supposed to be used for the development of the state and the real welfare of the citizens. Economists state that if any state has the capacity and ability to fund the leeway, it is fine, if not, then such leeway schemes become a burden on the economy.
What did the SC say?
On 22 August 2022, a bench headed by Chief Justice NV Ramana said, “A distinction has to be made between the offer of free ornaments, television sets, consumer electronics and the genuine offers of the welfarists. The promise of free coaching for professional courses cannot be compared to the promise of free white goods.”
The CJI said, “You cannot prevent a political party or an individual from making promises aimed at fulfilling this constitutional mandate, if elected to power. The question is what exactly qualifies as a valid promise"
India's Supreme Court has decided to set up a committee to examine the impact of the "freedom" on taxpayers and the economy and recommend measures to regulate it. The court wanted an independent expert body to study the pressing issue, interact with stakeholders and the general public and submit a report containing specific suggestions that can be sent to the government. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal wanted the Election Commission (EC) to stay away from the issue of gifts, which are political and economic in nature, and wanted Parliament to decide on appropriate remedial measures. But the court disagreed, asking: “Do you really think Parliament is going to debate regulation for free? Which political party will discuss this topic? No political party would agree to limit free contributions before the polls. Every one of them wants it.”
Conclusion:
As we see that Freebie programs can really benefit the citizens and contribute to the development of the state, the announcement of such programs and such promises through political promises is inevitable. However, political parties must consider their ability to be financially stable to deliver on such promises before making them, and the Electoral Commission must provide parties with a mechanism to fund such plans. Because in the current scenario, even if any Freebie promise is fulfilled, the common voter himself has to pay the cost in the long run in the form of higher taxes or experience less development.
You must be logged in to post a comment.