Recently, a hearing at the apex court clearly echoed Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s vocal opposition to crass populism through freebies, rightly referred to as ‘revdi politics’.
Notably, CJI caught the bull by the horns, observing that ‘the court is striving for a balance between the welfare requirements of the people, especially the poor and the downtrodden, and the need to avert a national economic loss through unbridled distribution of largesse by political parties to hold on to power’.
Interestingly, not too long ago, a certain candidate fighting elections for a municipality in Maharashtra had distributed pressure cookers to women voters for free, but with a rider. While the cooking pan was distributed ahead of voting, the cooker’s lid was to reach voters’ homes after and only if the candidate got elected. No example is better than this to explain how ‘revdi politics’ is transactional to the core.
With his candid observations, the PM has initiated a welcome discussion on this important subject. Considering the growing cynicism about the efficacy of democracy all over the world, the seriousness of this issue merits wider debate for at least three reasons.
Firstly, perhaps for the first time, political leadership at the prime minister’s level has openly voiced its strong opposition to the politics of freebies. The PM taking a clear position also amounts to the commitment of the BJP towards reforms to end ‘revdi politics’. This has added a new dimension to our political discourse covering issues like the health of democratic polity, governance, economic prudence and a perennial conflict between the ‘real good of the people and the perceived good.’
Also noteworthy is the fact that politicians like Arvind Kejriwal have joined the issue with the PM, defending their politics and vehemently rejecting the charge of the PM, making it a classic case of ‘the lady protests too much’.
The second reason for the wider debate is about the tendency of playing to the gallery becoming our social habit. Politics certainly cannot be singled out for this tendency. Be it cinema, literature, culinary cuisine or fashions—what is in the interest of the people is sacrificed for the sake of market pressures.
Hence, populism is not just a perversion in politics. This tendency is omnipresent, afflicting every walk of life. In a globalised world where markets are increasingly shaping preferences, determining choices and trying to set the agenda, the challenge becomes socio-cultural too. One can understand that television channels show what people like.
But considering that they shape public opinion, would it be unfair to expect that TV channels spend at least 20% of their show time not on what people like but what people should like? In the larger context, if market-friendliness decides the content of media, what moral authority can opinion leaders in print and other media claim to question the politicians and object to their crass populist policies and programmes? Is this the reason why journalistic criticism of populist politics makes little impact?
The third reason is the depleting credibility of democratic governance in several democracies. Democratic polities the world over have been struggling to establish their ability to deliver. This is because people in many relatively new democracies realise that democracies may not bring anything new to the table. Opinion polls in several countries, formerly part of the Soviet Union, have long revealed that people there prefer the olden days—they feel democracy fails to meet their expectations.
One of the main reasons for democracies not rising to popular aspirations is inertia on the part of politicians to educate the masses and tell them how populist politics, in fact, hampers their cause than serving the same. Happily, by initiating a debate, the PM is educating the people.
The history of populism is at least as old as modern representative democracy. The emergence of political parties as institutions brought in an element of competition only to become fierce later. In their bid to win popular mandates, parties started adopting shortcuts.
The populism of the ‘revdi politics’ type has been the easiest and most lucrative shortcut. In the 18th century, Edmund Burke famously said, “Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.” (Speech to the Electors of Bristol, November 3, 1774).
This habit of sacrificing one’s judgement to popular opinion is at the core of populism and also ‘politics of revdi distribution’. Giving doles for all who are formally unemployed, making electricity uniformly free, waiving school fees for all, and assuring water supply at no cost are not only examples of bad economics but also poor governance. Such decisions spoil popular mindsets leading to unreasonable expectations.
Besides, free lunches are fountainheads of irresponsible conduct of both the distributor and the consumer. Several years ago, in Maharashtra, a housing society with advocates and professors as its members had informally passed a resolution seeking free repair of the compound wall of the society against the guarantee of a few dozen votes of the residents. This was a back-door sale and purchase of votes. Clearly, ‘revdi politics’ is a spoiler to society as it is based on short-term entitlement at the cost of long-term empowerment.
Allowing parties to indulge in ‘revdi politics’ also amounts to punishing those who abide by the laws, pay taxes regularly and are not unreasonably ‘demanding’ in their interface with the government. Democracy is all about level playing fields, and ‘revdi politics’ distorts the same.
The sooner the apex court makes political parties behave and ensures systemic prevention of this disease, the better the health of democracy will be in India.
President, ICCR and senior BJP leader