Bengaluru:Rains may have arrived early in drought-prone Karnataka as all three major political parties—Congress, Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and Janata Dal (Secular)—have showered a bounty of populist schemes, that include free smartphones, laptops, cash and gold among other ‘items’ in their respective manifestos in the run up to the assembly polls on 12 May.
The Congress has promised smartphones to women from below poverty line (BPL) segment while the BJP is giving laptops, smartphones and three grams of gold and Rs25,000 for women from BPL background at the time of marriage.
JD (S) has promised Rs2,000 per month for women above 24 years of age, with monthly income not above Rs5,000 and owns less than 5 acres of land.
All three parties hope that targeted benefits like these would help swing votes in their favour in the state, where many depend on the distribution of more basic requirements like food, water and shelter.
While a bulk of populist schemes are passed off as a sub-text of welfare, the growing focus on the former category for electoral gains is apparent, notwithstanding the farm loan waivers, allocations to specific caste groups and communities.
For the voter, the promise of a consumer durable product serving as instant gratification and considered more real compared to promise of greater long term good like farmer welfare, infrastructure, better employment opportunities and free education among other announcements. Populist schemes almost serving as a kicker in the pack that would also help hit a higher delivery rate of the promises made in the manifesto.
But does populism bring in votes?
According to Sumant Raman, a Chennai based political scientist, the answer is yes.
“If populist schemes didn’t bring in votes, political parties wouldn’t be doling out such schemes. Clearly populist schemes have a place,” he says.
Late Tamil Nadu chief minister, J.Jayalalitha had almost made a policy around populism leading on to the creation of “Amma” brand of schemes including subsidised food, packaged water, call centres, cement and consumer durables among other products.
In Karnataka, Siddaramaiah has taken cue by announcing welfare measures around food security, which the Congress hopes will win them a second consecutive term in office.
“If Siddaramaiah wins, it will not be because of any great administration or great imagination. It will be because he is riding on populist schemes,” said A.Narayana, political analyst and professor at Azim Premji University.
But populism by one party is matched by the next one and is sometimes considered entitlement. Proposals to roll back a populist scheme by any party or succeeding government can lead to greater negative impact than the announcement of initiating more, analysts and at least two beneficiaries say.
Populism, in a sense, seen as welfare.
The distinction, if any, between welfare and populism is rather slim and fast blurring, analysts say. Narayana and Raman say that goods, beyond what is deemed necessary for living and taken without consideration of the financial health of the state. More specifically, aspirational like consumer appliances, targeting specific sections of society, especially the poor. Raman says that the benefits of populism, if any, can be reaped only if it is delivered.
“(The) key is not just announcing a populist scheme but actually delivering on populist schemes. People will judge populism by how you deliver it,” Raman said inferring Jayalalitha’s success. But many like former Uttar Pradesh chief minister Akhilesh Yadav, even populism, as a last ditch effort, couldn’t save his government.