Election season in India increasingly comes with a familiar political formula: announce a new benefit, promise financial assistance, expand subsidies and make voters a fresh set of attractive promises.
Supporters call it welfare.
Opponents call it freebies.
Critics call it vote-buying.
The uncomfortable question lies somewhere in between:
If elections increasingly depend on who can promise or distribute the most money, what happens to an honest candidate who doesn’t have deep pockets—or access to state resources?
Welfare or Electoral Calculus?
There is an important distinction that often disappears during political arguments.
A welfare programme can be perfectly legitimate.
Governments have a responsibility to support vulnerable citizens through food security, healthcare, education, pensions and targeted financial assistance.
The problem begins when welfare becomes primarily an electoral transaction:
Election approaching → new announcement → immediate financial benefit → political messaging → votes sought.
That doesn’t automatically prove that a scheme is illegal or that every beneficiary is being “bought.”
But it does raise a serious question about timing, fiscal sustainability and political incentives.
When the Election Manifesto Starts Looking Like a Shopping List
The political competition can become strangely simple:
Party A: “We’ll give ₹X.”
Party B: “We’ll give ₹X + ₹Y.”
Party C: “Wait, we’ll give even more.”
And the voter is left wondering:
Who is actually competing on governance? A functioning economy cannot be built entirely through pre-election transfers.
At some point, political parties must compete on:
employment;
education;
healthcare;
infrastructure;
law and order;
investment;
productivity;
agricultural reform;
taxation;
institutional quality.
Because a cash transfer can provide temporary relief, but it cannot replace a functioning economy.
But Is Giving Money to Voters the Real Problem?
Not necessarily.
For a poor household, ₹5,000 or ₹10,000 can make a meaningful difference.
A pension can prevent hunger.
A scholarship can keep a child in school.
A maternity benefit can help a family afford essential expenses.
So dismissing every welfare payment as “bribery” would also be unfair.
The better questions are:
Is the scheme based on genuine need?
Is it legally and financially sustainable?
Was it designed around a measurable public-policy objective?
Was it announced transparently?
Would the government have introduced it even without an election?
Those questions separate public welfare from political opportunism.
The Bigger Victim Could Be the Honest Candidate
This is where the concern about the future of Indian politics becomes serious.
Imagine a candidate who says:
“I won’t distribute cash. I’ll focus on schools, hospitals, jobs and governance.”
Now imagine another candidate promising immediate financial benefits to large sections of the electorate.
The second candidate may have an obvious short-term political advantage.
This creates a dangerous incentive:
Long-term reforms produce results slowly. Cash promises produce political headlines immediately. That can push politics toward increasingly expensive promises.
And when elections themselves become extraordinarily expensive, entering politics becomes harder for ordinary citizens.
The Wealth Barrier in Politics
Money already plays an enormous role in electoral politics.
Campaigns require:
workers;
transportation;
advertising;
digital campaigns;
rallies;
offices;
political consultants;
social-media operations;
legal and compliance teams.
If candidates also feel compelled to match increasingly expensive welfare promises, the financial pressure becomes even greater.
The result could be a political ecosystem where:
The person with the strongest public-policy ideas loses to the person with the strongest financial machinery. That’s a terrible incentive for democracy.
And Here’s the Sarcasm
Candidate:
“My manifesto has a 10-year plan for improving public education.”
Voter:
“Anything immediate?”
Candidate:
“We will improve teacher training.”
Voter:
“Cash?”
Candidate:
“No.”
Other candidate enters:
“₹10,000!”
Crowd:
“Development has arrived!”
Perhaps the next election manifesto will simply be:
“Vote for us and we'll transfer the national budget directly to your bank account.”
Obviously, that’s satire.
But the joke exposes the larger problem: politics can become dangerously short-term when immediate rewards matter more than long-term governance.
The Developing-Country Paradox
India wants to become a major global economic power.
The country talks about:
becoming a developed economy;
manufacturing;
innovation;
infrastructure;
technological leadership;
global competitiveness.
But development requires difficult decisions.
Governments sometimes have to say no.
No to wasteful subsidies.
No to politically convenient but economically damaging policies.
No to unsustainable expenditure.
No to schemes that look attractive today but create liabilities tomorrow.
That requires political courage.
A democracy cannot become economically stronger if every election turns into an auction of promises.
The Answer Isn’t to Eliminate Welfare
The solution isn’t to stop helping vulnerable citizens.
India needs effective social protection.
The solution is to make welfare transparent, targeted and outcome-driven.
For example:
Bad approach:
“Here’s money. Vote for us.”
Better approach:
“Here’s a legally established programme designed to improve nutrition, education, employment or household security, with publicly disclosed eligibility and expenditure.”
The difference is accountability.
What Should Change?
Political parties could make election promises more credible by publishing:
1. Full cost estimates
Every major promise should have a projected annual fiscal cost.
2. Funding sources
Where will the money come from?
3. Independent fiscal scrutiny
Major manifesto commitments could be evaluated by an independent fiscal institution.
4. Outcome measurement
Governments should publish whether schemes actually achieved their stated objectives.
5. Greater campaign transparency
Citizens should know who is financing political campaigns and how campaign resources are being used.
6. Stronger enforcement against illegal inducements
Legitimate welfare must be distinguished from direct attempts to influence voting through prohibited inducements.
The Voter Isn’t the Villain
It is easy to blame citizens for accepting money or benefits.
But consider the economics of a low-income household.
If someone offers immediate financial assistance while another candidate promises prosperity five years from now, the immediate benefit may be rational from the household’s perspective.
The responsibility therefore lies primarily with political institutions—not with poor citizens trying to survive.
The Real Danger: Politics Without an Entry Door
The greatest danger isn’t simply that governments spend too much before elections.
It is that politics becomes increasingly inaccessible to people without:
money, political connections, established organisations or powerful backers.
If that happens, democracy may remain formally competitive while becoming increasingly difficult for ordinary citizens to enter.
And that would be a profound loss.
India Doesn’t Need Cheaper Democracy. It Needs Better Democracy.
The answer isn’t to make citizens poorer by removing legitimate welfare.
Nor is it to turn every welfare scheme into a political scandal.
The real challenge is to create a system where good governance is politically rewarding.
Where a government can say:
“We built better schools.”
And voters respond:
“We noticed.”
Where a candidate can campaign on:
“We created jobs.”
And citizens ask:
“Show us the data.”
That is a healthier democratic bargain than:
“How much will you give me?”
Final Thought
Cash before elections may win headlines.
Welfare can provide genuine relief.
But if political competition increasingly becomes a contest over who can promise the biggest immediate benefit, India risks creating a system in which the most financially powerful candidates have the greatest political advantage.
And that is the real tragedy. Because democracy should not be a profession reserved for people who can afford to enter it.
The country needs politics where an honest teacher, doctor, farmer, lawyer, entrepreneur or social worker can enter public life without first asking:
“How much money do I need to compete?” A developing India cannot afford a democracy where money becomes the entry ticket to power.
