Our PM, in Jalaun UP, last month had said “People of ‘revdi’ culture feel that by distributing free ‘revdis’ to people, they can buy them. Together we need to defeat this thinking”. This is well said and is, as it should be. However, what is the difference between ‘Revdi’ and ‘kalyan’ or between freebies and welfare? The debate seems to be exercising even the top court with elections in a few states round the corner.
The Supreme Court bench headed by Chief Justice of India, last week constituted a bench to review its 2013 judgment which had held that the promise of benefits made by political parties in election manifestos even if they are construed as freebies, cannot be said to be a corrupt practice, raises several questions. First, what could be the wisdom of the SC in 2013, when it accepted freebies as not unfair practice? Second, what could be the wisdom of the SC in 2022, that it would want to relook the decision? Should all Political Parties review the freebie culture as probably the SC wants? Should the SC review the decision that lies in the exclusive domain of the executive? Has the Election Commission failed to exercise its prerogative to decide?
With the political parties constantly innovating in their offerings, the losing side is prone to contest. Certainly, freebies can skew the game. What percentage of fairness is skewed due to freebies? How is accountability of political parties measured? If all political parties were to do the same thing, would not the economics suffer?
Freebies are given free of charge. Forget complaining. No one would even resist a bargain or a freebie. In practice, something given or gotten free of charge, as a complimentary movie ticket, or a free handout is a freebie, whereas ‘Welfare’ refers to a variety of government programs that provide financial or other aid to individuals or groups who cannot support themselves.
The Welfare programs mostly funded by taxpayers must support the poor, developmentally challenged, and disadvantaged groups. They must allow such people to cope with financial stress during rough periods of their lives. The goals of welfare schemes must promote the pursuance of work, education, or, in some instances, a better standard of living. They must promote health, happiness, and fortunes of a person or group of people, their well-being, comfort, security, safety, protection and prosperity.
Two important points emerge. That the people who receive such benefits must be poor, developmentally challenged, and belong to disadvantaged groups and that such benefits must be essential to living. If it is so, then they must be called welfare schemes. Else they all will be freebies.
What is essential to living? We all need for survival, sunlight, water, air, habitat, and food. Sunlight is free and in abundance. Water is not so abundant and is rationed in some places and available at a price in many others. Real estate is held by the government or by private entities. Hence habitat always comes at a price. Food is produced in abundance. However, its production is subsidised and hence that cost has to be recovered.
Within the society, like there are able bodied and week, there are those who can pay a price and those who cannot for the above essentials. Those who cannot pay must be helped. It is also necessary that everyone in the country must be adequately skilled and must have a means to earn money required for these essentials. If a Nation defaults in providing a means to earn for everyone, then it must provide for them through welfare schemes. Obviously, eligibility for benefits must be based on a number of factors, including income levels and family size. Anything that is not essential to living will have to be termed a freebie even if it is given to poor, developmentally challenged, and to those belonging to disadvantaged groups.
The Directive Principles of State Policies (DPSP) aim to create social and economic conditions under which the citizens can lead a good life. Further, they aim to establish social and economic democracy through a welfare state. The Public Distribution System (PDS), Free Covid Vaccine and Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), ‘Mid-day Meal Scheme’, Rs. 2 per kg ‘rice’ in Andhra Pradesh that later became the National Food Security Programme, Rythu Bandhu of Telangana and Kalia of Odisha that became the Kisan Samman Nidhi have all been seen to be within the boundaries of the DPSP.
However, does giving away free TV’s or free bicycles or free electricity or anything else free constitute welfare? It is worse when some States announced free fans, mixers and grinders. for only those with ration cards completely violating the DP’s. One must remember that the Directive Principles, are not enforceable as a right.
If the spirit of the DP are stretched to win elections, why blame the political parties? The question is what were the election watchdogs doing? The Election Commission of India must enforce the Model Code of Conduct for guidance of Political Parties and Candidates and must regulate election manifestos. Should they not prevent the manipulation of voter behaviour?
Such profligacy can only lead to a drain on public spending and destroy the fiscal balance which is serious. It cannot be ‘revdi’ for some and disaster for others. What does the State do then? It may overcharge industrial and commercial contracts in order to maintain internal fiscal balance. This may slow the industrial growth or induce commercial price hikes. Freebies must be understood from an economic perspective and connected to taxpayers’ money. Do freebies not violate constitutional provisions such as the Article 14, 266 (3), and 282 of the Constitution? Are these freebies not akin to bribery and unduly influence the voters, prohibited under the IPC?
The freebie economy is not sustainable. There is nothing like a free lunch. Today’s promises include free college, free healthcare, free paid time-off of work, free houses, and even cash directly deposited in one’s account. Why and when can one gift? Only when in abundance. Do governments have everything in abundance? One has to create wealth before one can exchange it, consume it, or give it away. As long as there is a mismatch, gifts only tend to expand the economic imbalances in a society. A slow deterioration can implode democracy from within.