The debate over “freebies” in election campaigns exposes the tension between populist politics and fiscal prudence. Chief Election Commissioner Rajiv Kumar captured this complexity succinctly, questioning what qualifies as a freebie; an entitlement for one may be an extravagance for another. Addressing the announcement of Delhi’s poll schedule, Kumar lamented the lack of “accepted and legal answers” while warning against mortgaging future generations’ welfare for present-day political gains. His remarks underline the need for a framework that not only scrutinises the financial sustainability of poll promises but also reconciles welfare priorities with fiscal responsibility

The CEC was right when he said defining a freebie was difficult. It is fraught with philosophical challenges, the first of which lies in the subjective nature of value. What constitutes a freebie often depends on individual perceptions of necessity, entitlement, and utility. For example, some might see free electricity subsidies as essential for marginalised communities, while others view them as unnecessary handouts. This subjectivity creates a tension between the concepts of utility (benefit to the recipient) and entitlement (moral or legal right to receive the benefit). It challenges policymakers to draw a clear line between welfare measures that address inequality and populist giveaways that may lack long-term impact.

A Complex Question

The RBI Bulletin 2022 defines freebies as public welfare measures offered at no cost, such as free electricity, water, public transportation, and utility bill write-offs. However, the RBI draws a critical distinction between these and spending on public merit goods like the Public Distribution System (PDS), employment guarantee schemes, and state support for education and health. Unlike freebies, these merit goods generate economic benefits and positive externalities.

A study by the Centre for Policy Research (CPR) showed the effectiveness of freebies such as laptops, bicycles, and cash transfers in positively influencing voter turnout. These initiatives often resonate with voters, especially in lower-income demographics, as they provide tangible and immediate benefits.

However, while such measures may temporarily improve voter engagement, they risk undermining systemic governance and developmental priorities. Over-reliance on freebies diverts state resources from essential long-term investments in critical sectors like education, healthcare, and infrastructure. This trade-off perpetuates structural deficiencies, ultimately hampering economic growth and human capital development. Moreover, as political parties escalate their promises to outbid competitors, states risk slipping into unsustainable fiscal deficits, leading to potential economic crises.

The competitive populism associated with freebies also shifts the focus of electoral campaigns away from substantive policy debates to a transactional relationship between voters and the state. This dynamic may erode trust in democratic institutions over time, as governance becomes more about immediate gratification than addressing structural inequities or ensuring long-term economic resilience.

Rising Subsidy Costs

Election-driven promises of freebies have led to a sharp rise in subsidy expenditures, as highlighted in the RBI report State Finances: A Study of Budgets 2024-25. This increase, driven by farm loan waivers, free or subsidised services like electricity, transport, and gas, and direct cash transfers to farmers, youth, and women, creates fiscal stress. The report has even recommended that states urgently rationalise these subsidies to ensure that essential productive investments are not crowded out.

But why can’t the Election Commission stop political parties from announcing freebies? This is because of a Supreme Court judgement. The Court, in S. Subramaniam Balaji v. The Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors. (2013), held that announcing freebies in election manifestos is not illegal, as such promises cannot be classified as “corrupt practices” under Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act (RP Act). However, the Court acknowledged that these promises significantly undermine free and fair elections by influencing voters, distorting the level playing field, and vitiating the electoral process. Recognising the Election Commission’s limited authority, especially for manifestos released before election dates, the Court directed the Commission to frame guidelines under the Model Code of Conduct. It emphasised the need for separate legislation to regulate such practices. While legally permissible, the judgment flagged the moral and ethical issues surrounding freebies, highlighting their adverse impact on democratic integrity and calling for systemic reforms.

A Proposal From 2022

Based on the advice from the judgement, in October 2022, the EC introduced a significant reform aimed at ensuring transparency and fiscal responsibility in electoral promises. The EC proposed requiring political parties to submit a detailed pro forma along with their election manifestos. This pro forma would mandate a granular breakdown of each electoral promise, including the estimated expenditure, targeted beneficiaries, and a clear financing plan to ensure these promises did not destabilise state finances. Grounded in the principle of providing voters with actionable and comparable data, the initiative aimed to address the shortcomings of existing Model Code of Conduct (MCC) guidelines, which often resulted in vague and inadequate disclosures by political parties.

The proposal has not been implemented despite its potential to promote fiscal prudence and deter reckless electoral promises. Resistance from political parties, concerns over constitutional and legal implications, and a lack of consensus among stakeholders have stalled progress. Many political parties argued that such mandates could infringe upon their autonomy and flexibility in addressing voter needs, while others questioned the EC’s authority to enforce such measures without legislative backing. As a result, the initiative remains a missed opportunity to instil accountability in electoral campaigns.

It is high time this reform is implemented, as it represents a critical step towards fostering transparency and fiscal responsibility in electoral promises. While it is true that the EC may find it challenging to verify the granular accuracy of the fiscal calculations presented in the pro forma, the very act of requiring political parties to disclose these details introduces an essential layer of accountability. The reform serves as an important nudge against the indiscriminate announcement of freebies that can strain state finances.

A Discerning Public

However, the true challenge lies in addressing the broader issue of public awareness. Voters must understand the real fiscal cost of these promises and how, over the long term, such measures can undermine economic stability and harm the very median voter they are meant to benefit. This requires a concerted effort to educate citizens on the trade-offs involved—such as increased taxes, reduced spending on essential public goods, or ballooning debt—that often accompany populist giveaways.

Bridging this gap in public understanding is indeed a tougher nut to crack as it involves overcoming entrenched narratives and emotional appeals that often accompany populist politics. Nevertheless, the EC’s reform, by reducing information asymmetry, provides a vital starting point.

(Aditya Sinha is a public policy professional.)

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author

In the lead-up to the recently concluded Haryana assembly elections, anti-incumbency sentiment was expected to surge, fuelled by farmers’ protests and other significant issues weighing on the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). The Congress banked heavily on the unrest among farmers, wrestlers’ protests, and caste divisions to build a narrative that seemed poised to propel the party to the top of the state’s political landscape.

However, the election results told a different story. So, how much impact did the protesting farmers have on the assembly elections? In the Lok Sabha elections, the Congress saw an increase in both the number of seats and vote share in Haryana, largely attributed to the farmers’ discontent with the BJP.

Three years ago, when a coalition of peasant organisations successfully forced the rollback of three controversial farm laws, it was perceived as a significant blow to the Narendra Modi-led Union government. The euphoria of this so-called victory among farmer leaders soon transitioned into a political campaign against the BJP. Although their demands, including the legalisation of the Minimum Support Price (MSP), remained a focus, the protests took on an increasingly political tone.

A Mixed Outcome For Farmers

The Haryana assembly results revealed a mixed outcome for the protesting farmers. While the BJP’s popularity appeared to dip after the Lok Sabha results, the assembly election results signalled a change. Initially, the protesters succeeded in shaping the narrative. From staging pickets against BJP leaders during campaigns to public outreach and demonstrations, the farm leaders left no stone unturned. Protests at administrative offices and toll plazas further reinforced their message, but the overall mandate suggests their efforts had limited impact.

Gurnam Singh Charuni, a prominent farmer leader who played a key role in the protests against the now-repealed farm laws, managed to secure only 1,170 votes in Pehowa, finishing fifth. The seat was won by Mandeep Chatha of the Congress, who defeated BJP’s Jai Bhagwan Sharma by more than 6,500 votes.

Charuni, 64, who has faced multiple imprisonments since 1992 due to his activism, is the president of a faction of the Bhartiya Kisan Union. He contested the election under his political party, the Sanyukt Sangharsh Party (SSP). It is said that Charuni was initially seeking a Congress ticket to challenge the BJP but decided to contest independently when that didn’t materialise.

In contrast, state BJP leader and former Haryana minister Anil Vij managed to retain the Ambala Cantonment constituency despite facing significant farmer protests. He defeated independent candidate Chitra Sarwara, a former member of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), by over 7,000 votes, with Congress candidate Parvinder Pal Pari trailing in third place.

Vij – who was dropped from the cabinet when Manohar Lal Khattar was replaced as chief minister by Nayab Singh Saini in March – was heavily targeted by farmer unions throughout his campaign. They picketed his election rallies, and protests followed his campaign trail.

However, in Hisar and Ratia, where BJP candidates also faced intense protests over farm issues, the party suffered losses. In Hisar, BJP leader Kamal Gupta finished third, while in Ratia, Sunita Duggal lost to Congress candidate Jarnail Singh by over 21,000 votes. Gupta had previously won the Hisar seat in both the 2014 and 2019 assembly elections. In Ratia, sitting BJP legislator Lakshman Dass Napa quit the party after being denied a ticket.

The Border Impact

In constituencies bordering Punjab – a state that strongly rejected the BJP and has a robust base of farm unions – the election results were more polarised. Congress secured nine seats, while the BJP won three. Of these, the BJP managed to retain one but lost five to the Congress. The Congress kept two seats but lost one to the BJP. Dushyant Chautala’s Jannayak Janta Party (JJP), which was once allied with the BJP, lost the two seats it previously held in the Punjab border region – one to Congress and the other to the BJP. Notably, the JJP failed to win a single seat in this election.

Farm Politics And Political Leanings

Despite many Samyukta Kisan Morcha (SKM) leaders being directly connected with anti-BJP parties, the group largely stayed out of the elections. In 2022, the SKM severed ties with the Samyukta Samaj Morcha (SSM) led by Balbir Singh Rajewal and Charuni’s SSP.

The poster boy of the 2020-2021 anti-farm law protests, Rakesh Tikait, previously contested elections, but without success. On the other hand, Hannan Mollah, a senior leader of the All India Kisan Sabha and former member of Parliament from the Communist Party of India (Marxist), won from West Bengal’s Uluberia eight times.

The political leanings of most SKM leaders are rooted in socialist or Left ideologies – traditionally anti-BJP. However, the peasant leaders likely missed a critical lesson from 2020 when, during the height of the protests, the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) won a majority in the Bihar assembly elections, despite the anti-farm law sentiment.

Undeterred, farm leaders continued to campaign against the BJP in subsequent state elections. While the BJP won governments in Assam and Puducherry, other parties triumphed in states like Kerala, Tamil Nadu, and West Bengal, where SKM leaders claimed some credit for the electoral outcomes, particularly in West Bengal, where Mamata Banerjee’s Trinamool Congress scored a major victory.

Despite these efforts, two years later it seems that while farm-related issues may have influenced voters in border areas, they failed to swing the overall mandate away from the BJP.

(Jayanta Bhattacharya is a senior journalist writing on polls and politics, conflict, farmer and human interest issues)

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author