The Supreme Court of India's observations on Wednesday on political parties doling out freebies at election time raise critical questions about the implications of such policies on societal dynamics. The court's characterization of these incentives as fostering a “class of parasites” highlights a growing concern that government handouts can undermine the work ethic of citizens, creating a reliance on state support rather than encouraging individual efforts and self-sufficiency.
Election freebies, ranging from free rations to monetary assistance, have been a predominant feature of political campaigns across India. Governments have often used the annual budget exercise as a pole vault by announcing outrageous schemes and doles. The central government's schemes combined with the electoral promises made by various state governments have created an environment where financial incentives take precedence with the realities submerged in the abyss of the unknown. While aiming to win votes, these measures risk instilling a culture of lethargy and dependency rather than empowerment and responsibility. For example, the unemployment dole contemplated some years back was opposed because it would lead to a culture of finding comfort in free money.
Justice B R Gavai's remarks during the Supreme Court hearing highlight the fundamental dilemma: Are these welfare schemes genuinely beneficial, or do they perpetuate a cycle of dependency? The direct connection between free handouts and reduced motivation to seek work is alarming. As people receive free resources without contributing to society, there’s a troubling tendency for some segments of society to become complacent, relying on the state rather than seeking opportunities for self-improvement. This trend is not merely anecdotal; it reflects broader socio-economic patterns. For instance, agricultural labour shortages in Maharashtra have been attributed to the prevalence of free benefits that incentivize potential workers to stay home rather than engage in work. The paradox here is while government freebies may be intended to alleviate poverty, they inadvertently hinder the very economic activity necessary for true progress.
The argument made by the petitioners in the Supreme Court — that the primary victims of this systemic issue are the truly disadvantaged — cannot be overlooked. The withdrawal of urban shelter funding has left many homeless individuals exposed to harsh conditions, which was evident in the tragic deaths reported during winter. The focus on election-driven incentives seems to overshadow the pressing needs of society's most vulnerable segments, prompting a question of ethical governance.
The crux of the issue lies in the balance between social welfare and societal participation. While it is the government's responsibility to provide a safety net for its citizens, it should not come at the expense of fostering a culture of dependence. This dilutes the spirit of self-reliance that is integral to any socio-economic fabric. The solution may lie in a more thoughtful approach that combines direct support with programmes aimed at skill development and job creation, thereby promoting empowerment rather than dependency.
The discourse around freebies is complex and multifaceted. Political accountability and ethical governance must take precedence over short-term electoral gains. If parties continue to prioritize electoral strategies that dish out incentives without addressing underlying structural issues, we risk entrenching a culture of passivity. The health of a democracy is ultimately measured by its citizens' engagement in the collective responsibility of nation-building — not merely as recipients of state largesse.
