Editorial: Poll panel’s overreach
On the face of it, the Election Commission’s move to make political parties accountable for their poll promises appears well-intended but it amounts to overreach. The poll panel is not the right body to decide what freebies are to be allowed or what should be the cap on such spending. It is for the political […]
On the face of it, the Election Commission’s move to make political parties accountable for their poll promises appears well-intended but it amounts to overreach. The poll panel is not the right body to decide what freebies are to be allowed or what should be the cap on such spending. It is for the political parties and the elected governments to devise and implement welfare policies that are not only beneficial to the vulnerable sections of society but also reflect fiscal responsibility. The enactment of the Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management (FRBM) Act is a classic example of legislative accountability and the maturity of parties in adhering to it. The EC, as a constitutional body, is entrusted with the responsibility of conducting free and fair polls in the country and preventing people with criminal antecedents from entering the poll fray. The experience in the last few years of the NDA rule shows that the poll panel has not exactly covered itself in glory. From the heydays of the legendary TN Seshan, the standards of the Election Commission have, unfortunately, fallen, with several contentious decisions going in favour of the ruling dispensation. While there can be no two opinions about the need to weed out unreasonable freebies as they take a heavy toll on the States’ fiscal health, it would be imprudent on the part of any constitutional body to dictate the welfare agendas to political parties. Moreover, the relevance and viability of freebies vary from State to State and it would be impractical to prescribe a uniform policy for the country.
The EC has sought modifications in the Model Code of Conduct and asked the parties to quantify their poll promises, explain their source of funding and assess their impact on the fiscal sustainability of the State. It must be pointed out that a manifesto is much more than just a few promises, entailing financial costs. In a democracy, it is supposed to serve as a vision document with both subjective and objective elements. It is about the party’s convictions, and the salience it attaches to certain issues. It would be outside the purview of the poll body to curb the political and economic imagination or specify parameters for poll promises. Given the present levels of poverty, unemployment and huge inequalities, welfarism will drive the political economy. Moreover, defining freebies is impossible, and terming any promise as an “irrational freebie” is fraught with contestation and open to interpretation. A promise of one political party may be an irrational freebie for another and vice versa. If democracy is a contestation of ideas, free and fair elections would mean that political parties slug it out to debunk one idea over the other, and draw the voters’ attention with their own vision. There should be a level playing field for political parties.
