An independent body is needed to analyze the “revri culture” in Indian politics

GG News Bureau

New Delhi, 3^rd September. A debate erupted after Prime Minister Narendra Modi stated that “some governments are indulging in revri culture to secure votes.”

In response to petitions seeking a ban on parties promising freebies to voters before elections, the Supreme Court proposed forming a multi-stakeholder expert committee to look into the matter.

In 2013, the Supreme Court directed the Election Commission to develop guidelines for regulating manifestos.

The issue of freebies was also raised at the time. However, the Supreme Court became interested in this issue primarily because it was concerned that political parties were attempting to entice voters with extravagant promises. According to the bench, “freebies, without a doubt, influence all people.” It severely shakes the foundation of free and fair elections.”

This time, however, the issue has gained public attention due to the state of our neighbouring economies. The Supreme Court’s concern is understandable. According to a recent Reserve Bank of India report, many Indian states are in fiscal trouble, in part due to their generosity in providing sops. Furthermore, there is an important issue of intergenerational equity to consider: if we continue to run large deficits to fund current expenditures, aren’t we imposing a heavy burden on future generations to pay for our excesses?

Nonetheless, it is not the SC’s prerogative to regulate what parties promise.

Regardless of recent precedents, doing so would be a classic example of judicial overreach and would be in violation of Article 50 of the Constitution. Even the Election Commission should avoid getting involved in this matter. Its job is to conduct free and fair elections, and the fact that it is respected by all political parties is a major reason for this. Finally, this is a political decision that citizens must make.

Who is going to bell the cat? Our solution entails not explicitly regulating what parties promise in their manifestos, but rather compelling them to disclose the true costs embodied in their proposals. Only the media currently dissects half-baked manifestos when they are released. On occasion, op-eds are written on the more newsworthy proposals, in which the idea is thoroughly examined and scrutinized. However, no technical institution is specifically dedicated to this cause. In most cases, the public is unaware of what is feasible and what is not, which is a major impediment to informed decision-making. This is where things must change.

This can be accomplished by establishing a new body charged with carrying out this mandate. In the United Kingdom, for example, the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) examines the manifestos of all major political parties prior to an election. Its employees crunch numbers and calculate the fiscal costs of each economic proposal. IFS economists speak with party officials to gather more information on their promises, highlighting when policy costs are not being accounted for. During the 2019 general election, for example, the IFS pointed out that a number of proposals in both the Conservative and Labor Party manifestos were unfunded.

The trust that the British people have in the London-based research institute is what distinguishes it. The IFS employs some of the best economists in the United Kingdom. During election season, they use their extensive knowledge of public finances and public policy in general to evaluate manifesto pledges. Later, the institute hosts a well-attended event where they discuss their findings, which sparks a debate in their national dailies. The IFS was founded in 1969 and is widely respected for its impartiality and non-partisanship; this is likely why the media, civil society, political parties, and, most importantly, the people take them seriously.

Can we have something similar in India? The IFS is a non-profit organization supported by the United Kingdom government, its research councils, and private foundations and charities. An Indian counterpart could benefit from a similar funding model. It could be staffed by the best public economists and analysts from the National Institute of Public Finance and Policy (NIPFP) and PRS Legislative Research. It will take time for our organization to gain credibility, making it even more critical to move quickly. In India, their task will be made more difficult because the list of promises made by parties is lengthy and frequently vague. Because they are general ideas rather than specific policy proposals, they are rarely funded. Furthermore, the quantity and quality of India’s public data is frequently suspect, making economists jobs that much more difficult.

The EC’s proper role is to nudge and push parties to write more comprehensive manifestos. These documents should detail what leaders intend to do and how they intend to do it if elected.

Manifestoes can also reveal how prospective finance ministers will deal with taxes, spending, and deficits; the more ambitious may choose to present a mock budget for their first year in office. Our proposed body will examine these calculations and provide an objective comparison of the various options available.

Even so, existing manifestos in India include many economic proposals that can be costed with some research.

This approach, however, is more democratic than imposing arbitrary restrictions on political organizations. Instead, allow for a free and heated debate once people are aware of the true costs and trade-offs involved in competing proposals. Our light touch strategy can also help to avoid the semantic stumbling block of what constitutes a “non-merit freebie.” No matter how much ink is spilled on the subject, there can be no one-size-fits-all definition that is acceptable to everyone. Instead, let us examine each proposal on its own merits during election season, with parties outlining the benefits and our IFS-like organization calculating the cost. The people will make the decision.