Mumbai's Civic Elections Become Battleground for Freebie Promises
After years of administrative rule, Mumbai finally prepares for municipal elections. For nearly half a decade, India's wealthiest city has operated without elected representatives. State-appointed administrators have managed affairs instead. This democratic gap should have sparked serious conversations about urban management. Discussions should have focused on running a megacity of twelve million people more effectively. Instead, the election campaign has turned into a competition of welfare promises.
Welfare Promises Dominate Election Manifestos
Political parties have released their Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation election manifestos. These documents reveal a race to outdo each other with welfare commitments. The list includes numerous attractive offers:
- Fifty percent discount on BEST bus fares for women
- Interest-free loans up to five lakh rupees for women-run micro enterprises
- Monthly cash transfers for domestic workers
- Free electricity up to specific consumption limits
- Frozen water tariff increases
- Expanded property tax exemptions
Even technology features in these promises. Some parties pledge artificial intelligence tools to track illegal migrants. Others promise AI systems to manage urban services more efficiently.
Cash Transforms Citizen-State Relationship
The problem is not welfare itself. Cities have always subsidized essential services like transport, healthcare, and education. What concerns observers is the normalization of direct cash transfers at the municipal level. These promises come alongside revenue-reducing commitments. Parties offer little explanation about funding sources.
This approach raises fundamental political questions. Are voters now seen primarily as beneficiaries rather than citizens with rights? Cash transfers fundamentally change how governments interact with people. They establish a one-way relationship where the government gives and citizens receive. Gratitude begins to replace accountability in this dynamic.
Municipal Responsibilities Suffer
When municipal politics moves in this direction, the concept of the city as a collective enterprise weakens. Citizens stop being stakeholders demanding better services. They become recipients waiting for their next payment. This shift proves especially damaging in urban contexts.
Municipal governments handle numerous critical functions beyond welfare distribution. Their responsibilities include:
- Road construction and maintenance
- Drainage and flood control systems
- Solid waste management
- Traffic regulation and infrastructure
- Water supply networks
- Public transportation systems
- School operations
- Primary healthcare centers
These services represent capital-intensive public goods. They require steady revenue streams and long-term planning. Every rupee committed to open-ended subsidies means less money available for fixing potholes, unclogging drains, or modernizing bus depots.
Fiscal Realities Ignored
Supporters argue that cash transfers empower women and provide necessary relief. Evidence does show that targeted transfers can improve welfare outcomes. They can enhance women's bargaining power within households. However, two critical questions remain unanswered.
First comes the issue of credibility. Election manifestos are not municipal budgets. Local corporations cannot print money like national governments. Unlike state administrations, they possess limited borrowing capacity. Municipal bodies depend heavily on property taxes, user charges, and government transfers. Promising fare concessions, tax exemptions, and cash payouts simultaneously without identifying funding sources represents fiscal trickery.
Second concerns the overall trajectory. The 2017 Economic Survey introduced Universal Basic Income as a conceptual reform. This proposal suggested replacing inefficient subsidies with streamlined payments. Current developments look very different. We now witness a slow, competitive drift toward quasi-UBI through election-driven cash promises. These new commitments layer on top of existing subsidies without consolidation plans or exit strategies.
Long-Term Consequences for Urban Development
Once such schemes become universal, they stop differentiating political parties. At that point, either payouts must keep increasing to maintain political impact, or politics must return to governance and service delivery. Historical experience suggests the former option proves easier but fiscally reckless.
Municipal finances remain inherently fragile. When revenues inevitably fall short, cities rarely cut headline welfare schemes. Instead, they reduce maintenance budgets, staffing levels, and long-term investments. Roads deteriorate and drains clog long before cash payments stop flowing.
The real tragedy lies in missed opportunities. Mumbai possesses numerous alternatives to this approach. A serious civic debate could have focused on job creation and livelihood enhancement. Competitive welfarism has crowded out such imaginative thinking. When elections transform into benefit auctions, democracy shifts from deliberation to mere distribution. Voters are no longer asked what kind of city they want to build. They are only asked what benefits they will receive.
This strategy might win elections in the short term. It will not, however, fix Mumbai's pressing urban challenges. The city requires sustainable solutions, not temporary payouts.
