E-Paper
Set up an independent body to dissect poll promises
There can be no one-size-fits-all definition of freebies. Instead, let us examine each promise on its merits during election season
A debate has ensued after Prime Minister Narendra Modi said that “some governments are indulging in revri culture to secure votes”.
The Supreme Court (SC), in response to petitions seeking a ban on parties promising freebies to voters before elections, proposed setting up a multi-stakeholder expert committee to examine this issue.
In 2013, the SC asked the Election Commission (EC) to frame guidelines for regulating manifestos.
At that time too, the issue of freebies was raised. However, the SC got interested in this issue primarily because it was concerned that political outfits are trying to lure voters through extravagant promises. The bench noted, “...freebies, undoubtedly, influence all people. It shakes the root of free and fair elections to a large degree.”
This time, however, the issue has got public traction in light of the mess our neighbouring economies find themselves in. The SC’s concern cannot be faulted. As per a recent Reserve Bank of India report, many Indian states are in precarious fiscal territory partly due to their extravagance in providing sops. Moreover, there is an important question of intergenerational equity - if we keep running high deficits to finance current expenditures, aren’t we imposing a heavy burden on future generations to foot the bill for our excesses?
Still, it is not the SC’s business to govern what parties promise.
Notwithstanding recent precedents, doing so would be a classic example of judicial overreach and at odds with Article 50 of the Constitution. Even the EC shouldn’t step into this arena. Its job lies in the conduct of free and fair elections - aloofness from all political parties is a major reason why it is well respected. Ultimately, this is a political choice that citizens have to make.
Then who will bell the cat? Our solution lies in not explicitly regulating what parties promise in their manifestos but instead forcing them to come clean on the true costs embodied in their proposals. Right now, only the media dissects half-baked manifestos when they are released. At times, op-eds are written on the more newsworthy proposals, which examine and scrutinise the idea in great depth. However, there is no technical institution that is especially devoted to this cause. The public, in most cases, doesn’t know what is feasible and what is not, which is a major impediment to informed decision-making. This is where a change is needed.
We can accomplish this by creating a new body entrusted with this mandate. For instance, in the United Kingdom, the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) scrutinises the manifestos of all major political parties before an election. Its staff members crunch numbers and estimate the fiscal costs of every economic proposal. IFS economists speak to party officials to gather more information on their promises, making it clear when costs of policies are not accounted for. For example, during the 2019 general election, the IFS highlighted that a number of proposals in both the Conservative and Labour Party manifestos were unfunded.
What sets the London-based research institute apart is the trust that the British people place in it. The IFS employs some of the best economists of the UK. During election season they draw on in-depth understanding of public finances and public policy more broadly to appraise manifesto pledges. The institute later conducts a well-attended event in which they discuss their findings, which takes the debate to their national dailies. The IFS was founded in 1969 and is widely regarded for its impartiality and nonpartisanship; that is probably why the media, civil society, political parties, and most importantly, the people, take them so seriously. (Disclosure: I worked with the IFS as an economist for seven months.)
Can we have a similar body in India? The IFS is a non-profit funded by the UK government, its research councils, and private foundations and charities. A similar funding model can fuel an Indian counterpart. It can be staffed by our best public economists and analysts, some of whom may be found at the National Institute of Public Finance and Policy (NIPFP) and PRS Legislative Research.
Our organisation will take time to build credibility, which makes it more crucial to proceed quickly. In India, their task will also be harder because the list of promises that parties make is long and usually vague. They constitute general ideas rather than specific policy proposals, so funding is rarely earmarked for any of them. Moreover, the quantity and quality of India’s public data is often suspect, which makes the tasks of economists costing them that much harder (but also more impactful).
The correct role for the EC lies in nudging and pushing parties to write more comprehensive manifestos. These documents should spell out in detail what leaders intend to do if they get elected and how. Additionally, manifestos can also disclose how prospective finance ministers will tinker with taxes, spending, and deficits; the more ambitious ones may choose to provide a mock budget for their first year in power. Our proposed body will vet these calculations and provide an objective comparison of the different options on offer
Nevertheless, extant manifestos in India also contain many economic proposals that can be costed with a bit of research. Some examples from state- and national- level documents released by various parties in the last few years include:
We will increase the guaranteed days of employment up to 150 days in cases where 100 days have been achieved in a block/district under MGNREGA.
The poorest 20 percent of all families will be guaranteed a cash transfer of Rs. 72,000 a year.
₹6,000 per year will be transferred to every student living in cities.
Free tablets will be provided to students of Class 8 and 9.
Property tax will be abolished and domestic electricity rates up to 400 units will be halved.
Free electricity will be provided to farmers for irrigation.
Free scooty will be given to meritorious girl students.
Government will provide tablet devices to all students studying in higher secondary schools and colleges.
Promise to waive outstanding farm loans.
Free washing machines will be provided to ration-card holders.
Free bus transportation services will be provided to senior citizens.
Will this suffice? We can’t be sure. However, this approach is more democratic than imposing arbitrary restrictions on political outfits. Instead, let a free and fierce debate ensue once people are aware of the actual costs and the trade-offs involved in competing proposals. Our light touch strategy can also help circumvent the semantic hurdle of what constitutes a “non-merit freebie”. There can be no one-size-fits-all definition that is agreeable to everyone, no matter how much ink is spilled on the issue. Instead, let us examine each proposal on its merits during election season - parties will spell out the benefits and our IFS-like organisation will compute its cost. The people will decide.
Sarthak Agrawal is in the Indian Administrative Service and was earlier an economist with the Institute for Fiscal Studies, London. Yani Tyskerud provided helpful suggestions
The views expressed are personal
