Welfare or Electoral Strategy? Public Money Is Not Political Capital..

When major financial commitments appear in the final months of a government’s tenure, the issue is not the legitimacy of welfare, but the timing, transparency and fiscal responsibility behind such decisions.

The election year should not become the season for extraordinary financial announcements. A government elected to serve for five years has the full tenure to identify public needs, formulate policies, assess their financial implications and make appropriate provisions.

Yet a familiar pattern has emerged. As elections approach, governments increasingly announce financial incentives, subsidies, cash transfers and special schemes for women, farmers, youth and other sections of society.

Many of these beneficiaries may genuinely need assistance. The question is therefore not whether support is justified. The question is why major commitments so often emerge after the budget has been presented and when elections are only months away.

If a measure is genuinely necessary, why was it not considered and provided for earlier?

That is a legitimate question of public finance and democratic accountability.

Public Money Is Not Political Capital

Public money belongs to the people, not to the political party in power.

Every major financial commitment creates an obligation that can extend beyond the tenure of the government that announces it. The immediate benefit may be visible, but the future liability is often less visible.

The fundamental question is simple:

Who will pay for it tomorrow?

This matters particularly when a scheme involves recurring expenditure. A benefit announced today may require funding year after year, potentially affecting future budgets and reducing the fiscal choices available to subsequent governments.

A responsible government must therefore explain not only what citizens will receive, but also the total cost, source of funding, duration and long term sustainability of the commitment.

The Final Budget Must Precede the Election

This is where a clear democratic principle is needed.

Major new welfare schemes and substantial recurring financial commitments intended for the final year of a government’s tenure should ordinarily be announced and financially provided for through its final annual budget, rather than introduced later through separate announcements before the election.

The final budget is the appropriate forum for such commitments. It allows the legislature to examine the proposal and the public to understand its financial implications.

If additional support for women is considered necessary, it should be reflected in the final budget. If farmers require additional assistance, the provision should be made there. The same principle should apply to any other substantial recurring commitment.

Once the final budget has been presented, the period before an election should not become a window for introducing major discretionary financial schemes outside that budget.

This should not prevent genuine emergencies, natural disasters or unforeseen circumstances requiring immediate government intervention. Exceptional situations require exceptional decisions.

For ordinary discretionary commitments, however, budgetary discipline should come before electoral visibility.

The Next Government Must Not Inherit a Trap

The consequences become clearer when there is a change of government.

Suppose Government A announces a substantial recurring benefit after presenting its final budget and shortly before an election. Government A then loses power.

Government B inherits the financial commitment.

If it continues the scheme, it accepts a liability it did not create.

If it reviews or withdraws the scheme because it considers the expenditure unsustainable, it may face public criticism for taking away a benefit.

This is not a healthy basis for fiscal governance.

One government should not be able to create substantial and politically difficult financial obligations for its successor without adequate scrutiny.

Every incoming government must retain the ability to review inherited policies in light of its own priorities and the State’s financial position. Democratic continuity cannot mean permanent fiscal commitments created at the end of another government’s tenure.

Citizens Deserve Sustainable Support

Women and farmers, in particular, deserve meaningful and sustained public support. But genuine empowerment requires more than periodic financial assistance.

Women need access to quality education, healthcare, employment, credit and economic independence.

Farmers need irrigation, infrastructure, technology, storage, reliable markets and affordable credit.

Financial transfers can provide immediate relief, but lasting economic security comes from policies that strengthen capacity and opportunity.

The State should therefore be judged by the quality and sustainability of the support it provides, not simply by the size or visibility of an announcement.

A Democratic Reform Whose Time Has Come

India needs a clear and uniform fiscal principle for the final year of every government’s tenure.

Any major new recurring welfare scheme or substantial financial benefit intended for the final year should be announced and financially provided for in the government’s final annual budget.

After that budget has been presented, major new discretionary recurring commitments should ordinarily not be introduced before the election.

Where an exceptional post budget measure is unavoidable, the government should disclose its total financial liability, annual recurring cost, source of funding, duration and long term fiscal implications, and place it before the legislature for appropriate scrutiny.

Such a framework would strengthen parliamentary oversight, discourage last minute fiscal commitments and protect the fiscal space of the government that follows.

Most importantly, the principle must apply equally to every political party and every government.

A government has every right to seek another mandate. It also has a responsibility to manage public finances with transparency and regard for those who will govern after it.

Citizens deserve assistance when they need it. They also deserve to know how that assistance is financed and whether it can be sustained.

A mature democracy should therefore insist on a simple principle:

The calendar of elections should not determine the calendar of public expenditure.

Major financial commitments should be planned through the budget, examined by the legislature and justified by public need.

Public money is a public trust. Governments may change, but that responsibility does not.