Relevance- POLITICAL CULTURE

Use - #Issue #Keywords #Facts

1. Women Constituency - From a mere 47% turnout of women in 1962, the figure is now 66% in 2024. It is the same trend in State Assembly elections. Along with the increase in turnout, the fact that women are increasingly casting their votes independently reinforces the narrative of a ‘women constituency’.
2. Techno Patrimonial and Benevolence Leadership (Likert System 2)
   - Techno-patrimonial, whereby technology aids in advancing personal loyalty to the leader
   - Regular credit to the bene•ciary’s account also acts as a constant reminder of the ‘benevolence’ of the leader

@pubadpedia

(Part 2)
Arguments Against: Schemes as Legitimate Welfare Programs

Addressing Genuine Socio-Economic Needs:
Supporters of such schemes argue that the government has a responsibility to respond to the economic and social needs of its citizens, especially those who are marginalized or economically vulnerable. Cash transfers, like the Mukhyamantri Majhi Ladki Bahin Yojana, are designed to provide direct financial support to women in economically disadvantaged groups, improving their economic independence and quality of life.
The argument here is that, while the timing of these schemes may coincide with elections, the need for such welfare initiatives is genuine, and labeling them as bribes dismisses the legitimate benefits they provide to recipients.

Voters' Autonomy and Rational Decision-Making:
Reetika Khera argues that voters are capable of independent decision-making and that receiving benefits from government schemes does not necessarily mean they will be swayed to vote in a particular way. She emphasizes that voters are aware of their needs and will not be fooled by short-term promises.
As such, taking the cash assistance or welfare benefit offered through these schemes should not be equated with being "bribed," as recipients are entitled to these benefits and can still make informed decisions based on broader political concerns.

A Modern Approach to Electoral Promises:
Cash transfers may be seen as a modern-day version of electoral promises that have existed for years, such as promises for mixer-grinders or subsidized goods. Just as previous governments promised tangible benefits to voters, cash transfers are a contemporary approach that aims to address immediate economic hardship.
Khera notes that such transfers are not necessarily "freebies" but an essential part of how parties address popular demands. As long as these transfers target genuine needs (e.g., women's economic empowerment, better health, etc.), they should not be dismissed as bribery.

Limitations of Existing Welfare Programs:
A significant criticism of traditional welfare systems is their inefficiency and corruption. Programs like the Public Distribution System (PDS) and MNREGA have faced issues of mismanagement and leakage. Cash transfers, on the other hand, are seen as an attempt to provide direct benefits to people without intermediaries.
While cash transfers may not be a perfect solution, they can be a more efficient way of delivering support to those in need compared to outdated or corrupt welfare schemes. The debate should not be about whether these transfers occur near election time, but about how to improve the welfare architecture and ensure that transfers are not undermined by corruption or mismanagement.

Long-Term Socio-Economic Goals:
Supporters argue that these cash transfers are not meant to replace broader, long-term welfare schemes but can supplement them. They may serve as an immediate relief to vulnerable groups while other initiatives, like employment programs or educational improvements, are pursued in parallel.
For example, Reetika Khera highlights that certain cash transfers, such as maternity benefits, have filled significant gaps in welfare provisions for women, particularly in the unorganized sector. These kinds of transfers are vital in reducing inequalities and supporting the most vulnerable.

Relevance- Government and Administration

Use - #Issue

(PART 1)
Arguments in Favor: Schemes as Voter Bribes

Timing and Political Opportunism:
A key argument is that the introduction of these schemes just before elections is a tactic aimed at influencing voter behavior by offering short-term, visible benefits to targeted groups. This strategy might manipulate voters by appealing to their immediate financial needs, rather than addressing long-term systemic issues.
Critics argue that the timing — four months before elections — is not coincidental but a deliberate attempt to garner votes by providing a "reward" to potential voters in exchange for electoral support.

Unfair Electoral Advantage:
The introduction of such schemes during an election cycle is seen as providing an unfair advantage to the incumbent government. These schemes can disproportionately benefit those who are already aligned with the ruling party or its supporters, thus tilting the playing field in favor of the government.
For instance, if the cash transfer programs are distributed in a way that coincides with the election period, it can create an impression that the party is “buying” votes through material incentives.

Short-Term Palliatives Instead of Long-Term Solutions:
Critics contend that cash transfers and similar schemes are short-term fixes designed to pacify immediate needs rather than addressing the structural and long-term issues faced by the electorate (such as employment, healthcare, or education). This transactional nature can be seen as a form of bribery, as the schemes do not fundamentally alter the socio-economic conditions of the marginalized groups they target.
Instead of creating sustainable welfare systems, such programs may just serve as temporary measures aimed at securing votes.

Weak Evaluation and Accountability:
There is concern that, in the rush to implement these schemes, proper mechanisms for accountability and evaluation are weakened. Lack of transparency in the distribution of funds and the absence of independent oversight can lead to mismanagement and corruption, making these programs less about welfare and more about electoral manipulation.
For instance, if cash transfers bypass regular auditing channels or are poorly targeted, they could be perceived as part of a political strategy to "buy" votes rather than a genuine effort.

All the best to everyone who is going to appear in CSM24 ⚡️

The next 10 days are going to be crucial. Be calm and confident.

Start strong in "Essay" today and Finish off in Style in "Optional" on 29 ✔️

Give your best shot. May the force be with you.

Best Wishes ⭐️
Rahul S

There were as many as 57 instances of extensions being granted to superannuating chief secretaries of various states in the last 10 years, the Centre told the Supreme Court in Jan 2024.

Relevance - State Government and Administration

#PhD in Public Administration - Himachal Pradesh University

Direct Admission (Without Entrance)
Number of Seat - 1

Last Date to apply- 27/09/2024

@pubadpedia

???
Public Administration Optional Current Affairs Magazine - PubAdpedia May 2024 Sample PDF

You can subscribe #IncarNation module for UPSC CSE 2025 by clicking here

To know more about #PubAdpedia - Click here - https://t.me/pubadpedia/1878

Arguments in Favor of Introducing Totalizer in Elections:

Ensuring Voter Anonymity:
The primary advantage of the totalizer is to mask booth-level voting patterns, ensuring that voters' choices remain confidential. This prevents post-election harassment and retribution, thereby protecting the voters' rights and encouraging free and fair voting without fear of consequences.

Preventing Targeting and Intimidation:
By mixing the votes from different polling stations, the totalizer prevents political parties from identifying and targeting areas with specific voting patterns. This reduces the likelihood of political intimidation and vendetta politics, fostering a safer electoral environment.

Support from Electoral Experts:
The Election Commission (EC) and other electoral experts have repeatedly endorsed the use of totalizers. Their support suggests that the system has been thoroughly examined and deemed beneficial for maintaining the integrity and fairness of the electoral process.
Legal and Constitutional Backing:

The proposal to introduce totalizers has been backed by the Law Commission of India and other legal entities, indicating a solid legal and constitutional foundation for its implementation. This legal backing can help address concerns about the legitimacy and legality of the system.

Enhancing Democratic Participation:
Ensuring voter anonymity and preventing intimidation can lead to higher voter turnout and more genuine participation in the democratic process. When voters feel secure in their anonymity, they are more likely to exercise their right to vote.

Arguments Against Introducing Totalizer in Elections:

Potential for Manipulation and Misuse:
Critics argue that the use of totalizers could be manipulated to obscure irregularities or fraudulent activities during the voting process. This lack of transparency might undermine the trust in the electoral system.

Technical and Logistical Challenges:
Implementing the totalizer system involves significant technical and logistical challenges, including updating existing electronic voting machines (EVMs) and ensuring proper training for electoral staff. These challenges might delay its implementation and lead to initial confusion and errors.

Lack of Public Interest:
The government has previously stated that the use of totalizers does not serve a larger public interest. This argument suggests that the potential benefits may not justify the resources and efforts required to implement the system, especially if the public does not widely demand it.

Political Resistance:
There has been significant political resistance to the introduction of totalizers. Various political parties have expressed concerns about the system, fearing that it might impact their ability to analyze and strategize based on voting patterns. This resistance could lead to further political polarization and conflict.

Delay in Electoral Results:
The use of totalizers might slow down the process of counting votes and declaring results. This delay can be problematic in a fast-paced political environment where timely results are crucial for maintaining public trust and stability.