As conversations go, the EC idea is a good first step. However, for this route to rationalising ‘freebies’ to be effective, the MCC will need to get legal teeth – itself a contentious proposition. At present, it is a set of guidelines.
The proposal requires parties to work out the financial implications of their poll promises, including how they plan to finance the promises, whether it would involve higher taxes and cuts in other government expenditure. Given the growing concern over runaway subsidies and freebies across parties, the EC proposal offers a way out.
A party responding to this suggestion of sharing information about how its poll promise can impact fiscal health and government expenditures itself can determine show of good intent that the voter should take into consideration before making her choice. But voters, on their part, need to value such information to make informed decisions and understand that they are both the target and victim of ‘beneficiary’ fiscal irresponsibility.
Following the 2015 direction of the apex court, the EC incorporated guidelines on manifestos in the MCC in which parties are ‘required’ to explain the rationale and financial requirements of their poll promises. However, in practice, parties have been ambiguous and parsimonious in their declarations.
Also, not much demand for such information sharing has been evident among the votary itself. Such a proposal should become enforceable by law. But, for that, one needs consensus first in a democracy. The availability of information may not always automatically lead to rational political choices. But, hopefully, it will lead to considered ones.