The distribution of cash, goods, and services by political parties during election periods in India is a contentious issue with significant legal, economic, and social implications. The provided source material offers a detailed look at the nature of these "freebies," the public and official responses to them, and the challenges faced by election authorities in curbing their distribution.
Nature and Scope of Election Freebies
Political parties in India frequently announce and distribute various forms of incentives to attract voters. These are often referred to as "freebies" and can take multiple forms.
- Cash and Financial Incentives: The most direct form of inducement is cash. Authorities have seized vast amounts of cash during election periods. For instance, the Election Commission of India (ECI) reported seizing cash and items worth at least Rs 340.7 crore as of a Monday in the election period, with a significant portion being cash. Specific state-level seizures were also noted, such as Rs 108 crore in Tamil Nadu and Rs 95.79 crore in Andhra Pradesh.
- Goods and Products: Beyond cash, a wide array of physical goods are distributed. These include:
- Liquor: Seizures of liquor amounting to Rs 68.71 lakh were reported, even in states where alcohol is banned.
- Precious Metals: Gold and silver, valued at Rs 255 crore, were seized.
- Consumer Electronics and Appliances: Items such as watches, juicers, and mixers have been seized by authorities.
- Other Forms of Inducement: The term "freebies" also encompasses promises of loan waivers and other gifts designed to woo voters. These are offered by political parties as part of their election campaigns.
The scale of this phenomenon is substantial, described as a "nationwide" issue in a country of 1.3 billion people. It is not a new practice but is perceived by many observers to have become more acute in recent years.
Legal and Ethical Framework
The practice of distributing freebies raises serious legal and ethical questions, with arguments framing it as a form of bribery.
- Corruption Laws: A petition on Change.org argues that the distribution of freebies constitutes a bribe offered to voters. The petitioner references the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PCA), which criminalizes the receipt of any "undue advantage" by "public servants," a definition that extends beyond cash. The 2018 legislative changes to the PCA are also cited, which reportedly made bribe-givers criminal. The petition contends that since politicians are government servants receiving pay from the state, offering freebies is a form of bribery.
- Election Commission's Stance: The Election Commission of India (ECI) has identified bribery as one of its biggest challenges in ensuring free and fair elections. The Model Code of Conduct, which comes into effect once elections are announced, grants authorities temporary powers to seize items believed to be used to sway voters. Officials such as police and railway staff are empowered to conduct seizures of cash, liquor, precious metals, and other goods.
Economic and Social Impacts
The debate over freebies includes arguments for and against their impact on the economy and society.
- Potential Benefits: Proponents argue that freebies can have positive effects. These include enhancing public trust and government accountability, boosting economic growth and productivity in underdeveloped areas, and aiding in income redistribution to reduce poverty and inequality.
- Detrimental Effects: Critics highlight significant negative consequences. A key concern is the fiscal burden, as increased public expenditure can lead to higher fiscal deficits. Other negative impacts include:
- Creating a dependency culture, which may reduce motivation to work.
- Misallocation of resources by diverting funds from essential sectors like infrastructure and education.
- Compromising the quality of goods provided, which can affect market competitiveness.
- Giving a significant advantage to wealthier candidates who can afford to spend more on inducements. A report by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) indicated that 32% of candidates in the first phase of voting were multimillionaires.
Voter Behavior and Perceptions
The influence of freebies on voter decisions is a critical aspect of this issue.
- Voter Motivation: A large-scale survey by the Association for Democratic Reforms found that for 41% of respondents, the distribution of cash, liquor, and gifts was an important factor in their vote choice. This suggests that material inducements are a significant motivator for a substantial portion of the electorate.
- Public Campaigns: Efforts exist to counteract the influence of freebies. A theater troupe in Arunachal Pradesh, for example, performed a satirical street play with the message "don't sell your vote for money." Candidates are sometimes described as viewing bribery as a "cost of doing business," comparing it to putting money in the pot to stay in a poker game.
Enforcement Challenges and Effectiveness
Despite the existence of laws and the efforts of the Election Commission, enforcement remains a major challenge.
- Seizure Operations: Law enforcement agencies actively seize prohibited items during election periods. As of one report, authorities had seized Rs 1.5 billion in cash, 4.4 million litres of liquor, precious metals, and illegal drugs. Seizures of drugs and narcotics were also reported at a value of roughly Rs 692 crore.
- Lack of Prosecution: A significant criticism is the low rate of prosecution following seizures. According to the Times of India, the ECI told the Supreme Court after the 2019 elections that it had returned most seized money and goods to their owners. Prosecution was initiated in only three cases, and the commission did not provide further information on these. Furthermore, the ECI has stopped publicizing a daily list of seizures, which it had done in 2019.
- Perceived Ineffectiveness: This reluctance to prosecute sends the wrong signal to political parties, according to election watchdogs. The founder-member of the ADR stated that the lack of action effectively encourages parties to continue the practice. Bribery is reportedly easier to conceal in remote areas like Arunachal Pradesh, away from media and central oversight.
Conclusion
The distribution of cash and other freebies during Indian elections is a widespread and deeply entrenched practice. It is viewed by critics and election authorities as a form of bribery that undermines the democratic process and has significant negative economic consequences, including fiscal strain and resource misallocation. While the Election Commission of India has the authority to seize large quantities of cash and goods, its follow-through with legal prosecution appears limited. This enforcement gap, combined with the perceived influence of material inducements on a large segment of voters, perpetuates a cycle where wealthier candidates hold a distinct advantage and the integrity of the electoral process is challenged.