As Delhi gears up for its elections, the political discourse has once again been dominated by promises of handouts. From cash incentives for women and the elderly to subsidised cooking gas and free electricity, political parties are doubling down on populist measures to secure votes. While such strategies may yield short-term electoral gains, the long-term implications for governance, fiscal stability, and democratic integrity are profound and troubling.

The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), aiming to reclaim power in Delhi after nearly three decades, has unveiled a slew of promises that echo the strategies employed by its main rival, the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP). AAP’s governance model over the past decade has been defined by populism, with free water, electricity, and bus services forming the backbone of its voter outreach. While these measures have undoubtedly provided relief to the city’s underprivileged, they have also strained Delhi’s finances, reducing its revenue surplus significantly in recent years. What is concerning is the escalation of this competition. Political parties are not merely matching each other’s promises but outbidding them, leading to a race that risks undermining fiscal prudence. If either party’s new promises are implemented, subsidies could rise to nearly 20 per cent of Delhi’s budget, diverting resources from critical areas like healthcare, education, and infrastructure. This trend, far from being limited to Delhi, is becoming a norm across India.

Advertisement

The Reserve Bank of India has repeatedly cautioned against fiscal repercussions of such giveaways, highlighting how they erode states’ ability to invest in long-term development. Many states, already burdened with high deficits, are resorting to increased borrowing to fund these schemes. The resultant financial strain not only affects economic growth but also exacerbates intergenerational inequities, as future taxpayers bear the brunt of today’s electoral gambits. Beyond the economic cost, the rising reliance on handouts poses a challenge to India’s democratic fabric. Elections, ideally a platform for competing visions of governance, are increasingly reduced to auctions where votes are won by the highest bidder. This shift undermines the principle of informed choice, as voters are enticed by immediate benefits rather than long-term policy priorities. It also sidesteps critical issues such as environmental sustainability, urban planning, and public health, which require urgent attention in cities like Delhi. While welfare measures are essential to address socio-economic disparities, they must be sustainable and complemented by investments that empower individuals to rise out of poverty. Cash transfers and subsidies can provide temporary relief, but they cannot replace systemic reforms in education, job creation, and public infrastructure.

As the Delhi elections approach, it is imperative for voters and policymakers alike to recognise the risks of competitive populism. India’s progress hinges on balancing immediate welfare needs with the pursuit of long-term economic and social goals. The future of its democracy depends not on the distribution of handouts but on the delivery of transformative governance. Sadly, that is at a premium.