In the run-up to elections in five states, the major parties are, as is their wont, making several promises to the public. In some cases, ruling parties even implement such promises in the days before the elections. This is part and parcel of elections in a democracy, and even a healthy practice -- the public should know what they’re being asked to support or reward through their choices on polling day.
These appeals to voters broadly fall into three categories. Some of the promises are for all members of the public. For example, a reduction in power tariffs, which is available to all consumers without distinction. A second set of promises is for women, such as free public transport, and these too can be considered universal. But there is a third set of things on offer that are plainly targeted at some people only.
The range of such things is quite striking, but their common feature is that the benefit is proposed to be selectively available to some. Market and price support for farmers, ex-gratia payments to victims of some tragedies, the establishment of new government colleges in some districts -- these usual sops of the past had some unspoken but understood premise. Namely, that some people and some regions are suffering, and therefore the support of the State is selectively needed to uplift them.
This is understandable, but it is also worth keeping in mind that this kind of intervention has been going on for decades, without any evident results. The reasons why some livelihoods are under threat, or some places face under-development and distress, are complex. Weaknesses in governance, social fracture, and market friction all contribute to their desperation. The State, acting in isolation, is often unable to solve such problems.
What is more likely is that new pots of money from government budgets simply disappear into the same abyss that has contributed to the problems in the first place. Quite often, the funds end up entrenching the political power of ‘leaders’ who have only led their constituents to ruin.
It would be much better to make all State support universal in nature, without contrived inclusion of some people and exclusion of others. In India, the quest for better rights and opportunities for people has followed a course of ‘separate and equal’, by which those who need help seek it for themselves alone. This is motivated by the fear that unless the benefits are for them alone, they will be appropriated by others too, and therefore it is important to maintain a separate channel in which the gains flow only to them.
Political power is distributed unequally across society, and the risk of even good schemes being hijacked by vested interests that want to preserve the status quo is high. So, one can understand the preference for exclusive schemes. But there is also an obvious downside to such choices.
The core principles that distinguish democracies are ‘universality’ and ‘equality’. Therefore, the best State interventions for the development of people should also be anchored in these principles. If a proposed benefit does not bring us closer to universal equality, then it’s probably not a good choice. That’s the test that a lot of the political sops are failing today. Separateness itself is a kind of inequality, and it cannot be the answer to the social and economic challenges we face.
That would be more obvious if we step back to understand what is at the root of the under-development that some people and places face. Quite often, the reasons are that we have not made adequate investments in the social infrastructure that should be universally available -- and of good quality -- to serve them. Schools and health facilities, roads and transport services for market access, communication, public services -- these things need to be properly and fully provided in every place, rather than only in a privileged few. Perhaps, then, we would not see the basics of development being presented as options in polls.
Every child deserves a fair education, and the government of the day is obliged to fund it adequately. Every family has a right to health, and the public health system must be good enough to protect this. And so on about all the other anchors and pillars of development. We have already seen many rounds of promises without this mix of universality and potential equality. And they have not led anywhere. Instead, each time they have only set the stage for another set of very similar promises the next time.
Unfortunately, rather than correct the promises, parties are upping the ante on selectively inducing and winning the support of some people and excluding others. These days, they plainly appeal to the identity of the voter rather than their situation in life or their livelihood. Political leaders have become comfortable telling the voters that they stand for and with some people, and implicitly or explicitly against others.
This is a vicious cycle. If political power in a democracy is used as an instrument to selectively favour some people, those who are out of favour either lose confidence in development through democratic politics, or they embrace the idea that they too should try and defeat anyone who is not like them. Neither of these is good for the society or the country.
Check out DH's latest videos: