Otherwise bitter political rivals, the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) and the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) undoubtedly agree on one point: both believe their extravagant electoral promises are part of their welfare agenda and not an attempt to bribe the voter.
Since 2006, both have diligently distributed the freebies promised in their manifestos by freely drawing on public funds after being elected to power. Some have voiced concern over what they see as an attempt to influence the voter through promising free supply of specific goods such as television sets, mixers and grinders, ceiling fans, two-wheelers, milch animals, and laptops.
Advocate S. Subramaniam Balaji went to the Supreme Court against the prevailing “freebie culture”. The State government argued that the idea behind the manifesto promises was to raise the standard of living of people and formulate special schemes or policies for uplifting the poor. Hence, it could not be termed as bribing.
Its lawyers argued: “The concept of livelihood is no longer confined to bare physical survival in terms of food, clothing and shelter but must necessarily include some provision for medicine, transport, education, recreation etc… The distribution of basic necessities like TVs, mixers, fans and laptops to eligible persons and by fixing parameters can by no stretch of imagination be said to be State largesse.”
Court viewThe Supreme Court, on July 5, 2013, ruled that promises made by political parties in their manifestos could not be construed as a “corrupt practice”. The prohibition in Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, was only against individual candidates making such offers or extending gifts.
However, it observed that “in reality, it cannot be ruled out that distribution of freebies of any kind, undoubtedly, influences all people and it shakes the root of free and fair elections to a large degree”. It directed the Election Commission to frame guidelines on the preparation of manifestos and include them in the Model Code of Conduct for the Guidance of Political Parties and Candidates.
EC directiveThe EC issued a directive on April 24 last that parties “should avoid making promises which are likely to vitiate the purity of the election process or exert undue influence on the voters in exercising their franchise”.
The directive also said that “in the interest of transparency, level playing field and credibility of promises, it is expected that manifestos reflect the rationale for the promises and broadly indicate the ways and means to meet the financial requirements for it. Trust of voters should be sought only on those promises which are possible to be fulfilled”.
An Election Commission official said action could be taken onlyon a formal complaint, but no such complaint had been received so far.
( With inputs from Dennis S. Jesudasan )
