The recent Assembly election results have once again shown that Indian voters cannot be reduced to passive recipients of welfare promises. Cash transfers, subsidies, and welfare schemes may influence electoral choices, but they do not automatically guarantee political victory. If freebies alone could decide elections, every ruling party with a strong welfare package would comfortably return to power. The latest results suggest otherwise.
The recent elections to four state Assemblies raise an important question about the role of freebies in Indian politics. Governments changed in Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and West Bengal, while the BJP retained power in Assam. This is significant because in recent elections in states such as Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, and Bihar, ruling parties appeared to benefit from welfare schemes and direct cash transfers. In those cases, voters seemed to trust the ruling party more because the promised benefits had already been deposited into their bank accounts. Even when opposition parties offered higher benefits, the ruling parties enjoyed an advantage because they had already built some level of trust through implementation.
However, the latest results suggest that this logic does not always work. In West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, and Kerala, welfare promises and freebies were present, but they did not become the sole deciding factor. Both ruling and opposition parties made extensive welfare promises in their manifestos. In Bengal, the TMC promised to increase financial aid under the Lakshmir Bhandar scheme by Rs 500, bringing the amount to Rs 1,500 per month for general-category women and Rs 1,700 per month for SC/ST women. The BJP, on the other hand, promised Rs 3,000 monthly financial aid for women, doubling the benefit offered by the existing scheme. Both parties also announced support for unemployed youth.
A similar pattern was visible in Tamil Nadu, a state historically associated with competitive welfare politics. TVK promised monthly assistance of Rs 2,500 for women heads of households, eight grams of gold and a silk saree for weddings, a full waiver of cooperative crop loans for farmers with less than five acres, and 200 units of free electricity. The ruling DMK also offered several welfare promises, including an Rs 8,000 one-time coupon for non-income tax-paying homemakers to purchase or replace household electronic appliances under the Illatharasi Scheme. It also promised to increase monthly assistance for women heads of families from Rs 1,000 to Rs 2,000 under Magalir Urimai Thogai, provide 35 lakh free laptops to college students, and increase student aid under the Pudhumai Penn and Tamil Pudhalvan schemes. AIADMK also promised a monthly aid of Rs 2,000 for women household heads. These examples clearly show the intense competition among parties to offer welfare benefits.
Kerala presented a slightly different picture. The LDF manifesto focused more on welfare and social security than on direct freebies. Its major promise was to increase social security pensions from Rs 2,000 to Rs 3,000. The Congress-led UDF also promised to increase welfare pensions, provide free travel for women, and give Rs 1,000 per month to college-going girl students. Yet, in Kerala, the election was not simply a contest over freebies. Voter fatigue, anti-incumbency, and other governance-related concerns appear to have played a more important role.
This brings us to the larger question: if almost every party offers some form of welfare benefit, what actually changes the voter's mind? There is no doubt that freebies and welfare schemes matter in elections. They can create goodwill, attract attention, and influence certain sections of voters. But the belief that freebies alone can ensure victory is misleading. Voters do not judge parties only by what is promised in the manifesto. They also judge what has been delivered, how it has been delivered, and whether the government has remained credible.
Each state election has its own context. Kerala, West Bengal, and Tamil Nadu have different political histories, regional issues, and voter expectations. Yet one common message from these states is that ruling parties cannot take voters for granted. In a democracy, voters have the final say. Political parties may frame their strategies around caste, religion, welfare, identity, and leadership, but ultimately, it is the voter who decides whether a government deserves another term.
Performance matters. The report card of any government is important for the public. Voters may appreciate certain welfare schemes, but they also ask whether those schemes are enough. They look at governance, leadership, corruption, local dissatisfaction, employment, public services, and the credibility of promises. A party may have done some good work, but that alone may not be sufficient to return to power if voters feel that their larger expectations have not been met.
This is why the defeat of ruling parties in some states should not be explained only through the lens of freebies. Welfare promises can help parties reach voters, but they cannot hide poor governance or public dissatisfaction for long. In some cases, direct cash transfers may strengthen voters' trust. In other cases, voters may accept benefits but still vote against the ruling party. This is the strength of democratic politics in India.
Ultimately, the recent elections remind us that Indian voters are neither blind followers of political parties nor mere beneficiaries of welfare schemes. They observe, compare, and decide. Welfare promises may attract attention, but they cannot replace trust, performance, and credibility. Political parties may design strategies around caste, religion, welfare, and identity, but the final verdict rests with the people. The real lesson is simple: freebies may help a party reach voters, but only trust, performance, and credibility can bring it back to power.
Dr Maya and Dr Kumar are Assistant Professors, Department of Economics, CHRIST (Deemed to be University), Bengaluru