It is often said that political freebies influence voters. That is why promises ranging from pensions and festival kits to free bus travel become contentious during election seasons. Freebies may tempt voters. But should we assume that those in power are immune to the influence of benefits extended to them?
Questions arise when ministers travel in aircraft or vehicles arranged by private individuals, or when private persons and organisations bear the cost of their overseas travel. The defence is usually straightforward: if the state exchequer is not paying, where is the problem?
The real issue is not simply who pays the bill. Who is providing the benefit? Why are they providing it? Do they expect anything in return? Could the relationship influence a government decision at a later stage?
In business, this is called a conflict of interest. Public administration cannot operate under a different standard.
The debate, therefore, is not about one aircraft or one journey. It concerns the transparency and standards of conduct expected from people holding constitutional and public offices.
If a private aircraft is used because a chief minister or minister needs to reach a disaster-hit area urgently, people can understand the practical necessity. But much of the controversy can also be avoided if the government transparently discloses who arranged the journey, who paid for it, what it cost and whether those involved have any commercial or other dealings with the government.
The answer is not to keep the government and the private sector at a distance. On the contrary, their relationship should move away from personal favours and towards transparent, institutional partnerships.
A businessman can contribute far more to Keralam by establishing a new industry than by providing an aircraft to a political leader. Similarly, instead of financing a minister’s foreign trip, an expatriate entrepreneur can create greater public value by bringing capital, technology or expertise into a project in Keralam.
That is where the real effectiveness of a government should be judged.
If the purpose of using a private aircraft is to reach a disaster zone faster, the public is capable of understanding its value. But administrative efficiency cannot be measured merely by how quickly a political leader reaches the scene.
The more important question is how quickly and effectively the machinery of government responds when a disaster strikes.
That is the difference between political image-building and administrative leadership.
While private aircraft, vehicles and foreign trips attract public debate, the larger challenges facing Keralam are elsewhere:
How can the state attract more investment?
How can new industries be brought in?
How can more jobs be created?
How can the power shortage be addressed?
How can expatriate capital and expertise be used more effectively?
The answers to these questions will ultimately determine the performance of a government.
The emerging power challenge, for instance, affects both industry and ordinary consumers. At a time when available electricity has to be used more carefully, public cooperation also becomes essential. A chief minister can use the visibility of the office to encourage responsible consumption and build public awareness without significant additional expenditure.
Interventions of this kind can strengthen public trust far more effectively than exercises focused primarily on political image.
Keralam needs more investment, more enterprises, more jobs, better infrastructure, greater power availability, higher production and stronger exports.
The state does not need a government that merely receives favours from businesspeople. It needs a government that opens doors for businesses to invest, expand and create economic value.
The success of a government should not be measured by how close its relationship with the private sector appears to be. It should be measured by how much value that relationship creates for Keralam’s economy.
