The upcoming election isn't only inducing the spirit of democracy as well as sheer excitement over the pending political dramas and rivalries. It is also taking us back to populism -- a political approach that tries to win over the hearts of ordinary people who feel their concerns have been sidelined by the established elite groups. In populism, personable politicians offer generous welfare policies to cater to the needs of their voters.
According to the Thailand Development Research Institute (TDRI), the total cost of the populist projects being offered by the nine main political parties in this general election will cost 3.4 trillion baht. The populist projects promised by the two most famous and likely winners will cost 2 trillion baht to realise, according to TDRI's survey released earlier this week.
While many voters are being swooned by what these political parties are promising, critics are earnestly asking a very basic question: Where is the money? So far, only the Move Forward Party (MFP) has identified a financial source for its generous welfare packages -- simply by using money from the budget that is traditionally used by the armed forces to buy weapons.
A more worrying question is what will be the effects on the country's fiscal budget when politicians start looking into the state's budget to realise their electoral promises.
The government -- likely to be comprised of multiple parties -- may have to look for extra revenue through borrowing or from state enterprises, such as state banks, to cover their populist pledges. The problem is that most of these populist policies will not increase the country's competency.
According to the TDRI, from all the 87 electoral campaign promises made by the nine main political parties, only 14 aim to enhance the country's human resource capacity, and only six will create new jobs against the 40 populist pledges around welfare, debt moratoriums and farm price guarantees. Twelve projects involve infrastructure development. Shockingly, only three campaigns referenced environmental conservation and the fight against climate change.
Ideally, the only way to combat unchecked and irresponsible populism is by voting in responsible politicians. Yet, society cannot afford to wait. It is hoped that the Election Commission (EC) will enforce Section 57 of the election legislation that requires political parties to not only inform the EC and voters on their money sources and cost-efficiency mechanisms but also on the downsides of their populist projects. So far, the EC has not penalised any political parties on the grand claims and false advertising currently being pushed in their campaigns.
Policymakers and lawmakers must tighten their fiscal laws to deal with irresponsible populism. The current fiscal legislation is not sufficient. The Fiscal Discipline Act only puts the maximum ceiling of public debt per Gross Domestic Product (GDP) that controls how much the government can borrow. Nevertheless, the government can get extra money from other sources, such as state enterprises. Fresh examples include last year when the government revised a law to permit the state Oil Fund to borrow money from state banks Krungthai Bank and Government Savings Bank to control diesel and cooking gas prices.
Hopefully, policymakers and elected lawmakers will design appropriate legal mechanisms to manage populist projects. The upcoming election is not only a popularity test for political parties. It will test voters on how to deal with the allure and perils of populism.
