The state election watchdog should have allowed financial officials to announce their estimates of the costs for carrying through the welfare programs so far pledged by the major political parties. The National Election Commission recently turned down a request from the Ministry of Strategy and Finance to let it disclose the estimated costs needed to implement the welfare pledges put forward by the ruling Saenuri Party and the main opposition Democratic United Party.
The commission appeared to be worried that the revelation of comparable projections by the government on how much money it would take to carry out the benefit packages proposed by the two parties might stir up a controversy over the political neutrality of the executive branch. In this case, however, the priority should have been put on giving voters detailed information to help them make a proper judgment rather than preempting a possible political dispute.
The commission had put a brake on the ministry’s earlier move to unveil the estimates before the April parliamentary elections, citing the possibility it could violate the government’s obligation to remain politically neutral. Faced with the objection from the election watchdog, the ministry at the time revealed the estimated cost for the 266 welfare programs drawn up by the rival parties, not breaking it down to calculations for each party. The move still drew a warning from the NEC.
The ministry made its latest request after it was asked by a lawmaker of a minor opposition party to disclose its estimates separately for the Saenuri and the DUP. Ahead of the general elections in April, the ruling and major opposition parties forecast their welfare packages would annually need about 15 trillion won ($13.4 billion) and 32 trillion won, respectively. But the Finance Ministry then estimated the combined cost at no less than 53 trillion won.
According to the latest calculation by the ministry, say some sources informed of the matter, the gap between the estimated costs for the benefit schemes of the two parties could widen three times, meaning it might take a lot more budget to put in practice the DUP programs. The election watchdog apparently felt burdened with allowing these figures to be made public, which would certainly prompt the opposition party to accuse it of being politically biased toward the ruling bloc in the run-up to the presidential election in December. In another reflection of such concerns, the NEC had earlier rejected an offer from the Finance Ministry to work together to scrutinize the financial feasibility of the parties’ welfare proposals.
This attitude seems too passive to guide elections to be focused on policies as wished by the commission itself. Under the Constitution, any government institution is obliged to maintain neutrality in elections. But it can hardly be seen as going against this obligation for the Finance Ministry to assess and publicize the costs of election pledges to help voters get an accurate perception of their fiscal validity.
In some countries such as Australia and New Zealand, it is stipulated by law that financial authorities make public their analysis of the content and cost of campaign promises by political parties ahead of election.
The institutionalization of a system to verify the feasibility of all high-cost election pledges should be considered. Political parties should no longer be allowed to churn out fiscally-unviable populist programs only to cause budget distortion and public disgruntlement after the election.
If it takes longer for a government assessment to secure public confidence in its political neutrality, it can be another effective check to oblige parties to submit details on funding for their campaign promises and have an independent body scrutinize them.
Political leaders should recognize that voters now know better than to welcome populist programs without considering their fiscal viability and costs in the form of higher taxes, more debt and increased burden on future generations.
