Politicians throughout the world use the election season to make numerous promises to the electorate, and India is no exception. Voters may find electiontime promises extremely alluring, but their fulfilment after the elections presents obstacles for the promise-makers. It is difficult to introduce and implement a new beneficial programme for it involves public money, general acceptance, and other priorities.
Certain commitments may need to be integrated into the nation’s pre-existing welfare policy, while others pertain to the country’s comprehensive progress and advancement. In contrast, specific policies substantiating the pledges are non-existent not only in India but also globally. Once in office, politicians are confronted with the difficult choice of incorporating the pledge into the current policy framework or devising an entirely new policy framework that will absolve them of criticism and censure.
The fulfilment of anticipated advantages does not conclude with the mere formulation of a policy; rather, an entire policy cycle ensues, commencing with agenda establishment and culminating in measures to maintain the policy initiatives such as policy formulation, strategy making, resource mobilisation, designing implementation mechanisms, implementation of delivery, monitoring and evaluation, as well as policy corrections.
The lack of awareness regarding the policy-making process among both the political parties endorsing these commitments and the supporting bureaucrats renders the programmes ineffective or detrimental to the interests of the parties that made the pledges. Formulating policies for the most populous and democratic nation such as India is not a simple undertaking.
The policy that is devised should aim to satisfy not only the beneficiaries but also the opposition in national and sub-national legislatures, which lost the election because they could not make a promise comparable to that of the winning party. Critiques of the government and governance are readily accepted in a democratic nation such as India. It is their right and cannot be contested other than by attributing mudslinging to them.
Therefore, the formulation of policy must commence with the identification of an agenda and progress towards it through initial consensus building, supported by a consideration of the social benefits and costs. This process of establishing consensus is referred to in the jargon of public policymaking as “far and wide consultation” and it involves all relevant parties, irrespective of political affiliation.
The stakeholders comprise both the policy’s beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries, regardless of the socioeconomic gains or losses that may result from the policy. An additional obstacle is the rights-based approach that governments take to policymaking. It is permissible for the beneficiary to declare, “Nothing for me without me.” This means that a policy developed without involving the beneficiaries in the decisionmaking process or considering their input may be economically sustainable but is not acceptable to the beneficiaries and only serves to bolster the opposition’s position.
Therefore, it is a waste of time, resources, and effort to create and implement a policy without user input. Consensus building is thus a difficult task during the policymaking process. We shall now transition to the pragmatic phase of policy formulation. Let us assume that the political commitment made prior to the elections is to provide “unemployment allowance to all unemployed individuals in the country.”
The policy must be devised by the winning party that made the pledge in accordance with this agenda. After extensive consultations among state and non-state stakeholders, a national policy for unemployment benefit must be formulated in accordance with the principles of policy formulation once the agenda has been established and declared. Throughout the consultation, an abundance of issues emerges. The primary one relates to targeting. The states determine the recipients of the programme. What are their administrative mechanisms? Is the state prepared to examine individuals who are employed informally while awaiting formal employment?
What strategy does the government propose to tackle the problems posed by the unemployment and poverty traps? (An unemployment trap is one where individuals will become accustomed to the unemployment benefit and attempt to make do with it without actively seeking employment. The dole does not alleviate poverty; rather, individuals who are unemployed are inevitably re-entrapped in poverty.) Is the programme targeted or universal in scope? There must be inquiry into the exclusion clauses.
From where will the resources originate? Will taxes on the employed be levied to compensate for the unemployed? What method will be used to quantify the allowance? Which models comprise the allowance? Is the benefit extended for the duration of unemployment that occurs between the two employments? The consultation process entails numerous anticipated inquiries, and participants must be adequately prepared to respond to them.
This cannot be achieved without initially estimating the economic burden and identifying the sources of funding for the benefit. All such commitments ~ including universal health benefit, old age pension, free housing for the poor, complimentary bus rides for women, assistance to farmers, and support for widows ~ require national dialogue, consultation with stakeholders, enhancement of the capacity of delivery institutions, establishment of a conducive environment for benefit delivery, monitoring and evaluation, and documentation of lessons learned to facilitate any required corrections in order to address challenges. Linkages with other operational policies must be established, and duplications and multiplicities in benefit delivery must be prevented to the greatest extent possible. In order to circumvent these, targeting is prioritised, and governments are criticised on this basis alone, as numerous benefits accrue to a single family at the expense of others.
The dissatisfied are invariably the first to recognise and expose the inconsistencies that manifestly undermine the policy’s very purpose. As a result, political parties are cautioned against making commitments during election times without considering the potential economic and administrative complexities that may arise during the fulfilment of said commitments.
Rather than making empty promises, political parties should prioritise the following: ensuring efficient and transparent service delivery, preventing corruption, facilitating citizen participation in decision-making processes, encouraging community audits of public expenditure, improving public mobility, safeguarding against floods and drought, protecting public property, and protecting individual rights. Such commitments would carry more weight than mere assurances of doles that lead citizens into debt traps facilitated by governments.
(The writer is former Sr. Advisor, United Nations Development Programme)