𝗣𝗢𝗟𝗜𝗧𝗜𝗖𝗦: 𝗥𝗲𝗳𝘂𝗴𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗨𝗻𝗲𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗼𝘆𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲 ? 𝗦𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗶𝗰𝗲, 𝗦𝗮𝗹𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗔𝗰𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗗𝗲𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗶𝘁

𝗣𝗢𝗟𝗜𝗧𝗜𝗖𝗦: 𝗥𝗲𝗳𝘂𝗴𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗨𝗻𝗲𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗼𝘆𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲 ?

(𝗦𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗶𝗰𝗲, 𝗦𝗮𝗹𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗔𝗰𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗗𝗲𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗶𝘁 )

Introduction: When Self-Reward Precedes Public Relief

The recent decision to substantially hike the emoluments and perks of Odisha’s MLAs has reignited a familiar but unresolved public unease. At a time when the state continues to grapple with agrarian distress, regional backwardness, strained public services, and chronic unemployment, the speed and unanimity with which legislators enhanced their own benefits stands in sharp contrast to the hesitancy shown in addressing citizens’ hardships.

This is not merely a question of quantum of pay. It is a moral and democratic question: what justifies rising rewards in a profession where entry is unregulated, performance is rarely measured, and failure carries no penalty? The episode forces us to confront a deeper malaise in Indian democracy—whether politics has quietly transformed from a domain of service into a secure refuge for those who would struggle to survive under the disciplines of ordinary professional life.

A Growing Cynicism Shadows Public Life

A persistent cynicism now shadows public life: those who fail as engineers, doctors, administrators, or entrepreneurs increasingly find refuge in politics, cloaking personal ambition in the noble language of “public service.” This perception may sound harsh, but it is not born of prejudice—it is born of observation.

If politics is truly selfless service, why the insistence on extravagant salaries, privileges, and lifelong pensions? If it is a profession, why is it exempt from competence, accountability, and performance standards that bind every other career? The widening gulf between political rhetoric and lived reality has corroded public trust far more than any single scandal.

Service or Entitlement?

In its ideal form, politics is seva—a moral calling, not a fallback livelihood. Historically, public life attracted individuals with demonstrated ability, sacrifice, or moral authority. Today, politics has hardened into a near-monopoly: dynasties flourish, mediocrity is recycled, and service quietly mutates into entitlement.

Legislators—often without demonstrable qualifications or prior achievement—determine their own salaries and privileges, frequently placing them well above the national income median. No doctor, engineer, or civil servant claims lifelong reward merely for holding office. Why should politics alone enjoy this exemption?

Failure Without Consequences

Every profession disciplines incompetence—except politics. There are no entry standards, no mandatory training, no performance reviews. Elections, distorted by money power, identity arithmetic, and muscle, substitute for merit.

Once elected, failure rarely results in removal, yet pay and perks continue uninterrupted. The irony is stark: citizens pay the price of misgovernance, while legislators remain insulated from its consequences.

The Paradox of “Paid Service”

True service implies sacrifice. Teachers, nurses, sanitation workers, and frontline staff serve quietly—underpaid, overworked, and often invisible. Politicians, meanwhile, proclaim themselves public servants while voting for pay hikes and guaranteed benefits.

If this is service, why is entry unrestricted but reward assured? Why is accountability episodic, but compensation continuous?

High Pay, Low Standards

The argument that higher salaries attract talent or curb corruption rings hollow. Corruption persists; standards decline. Judges, scientists, and senior civil servants work under far stricter scrutiny with comparatively modest benefits.

The real deficit in politics is not pay—it is standards: 

qualifications, ethical codes, training, transparency, and measurable outcomes. Without these, higher pay merely raises the cost of mediocrity.

Pensions Without Contribution

Nothing exposes the contradiction more starkly than political pensions—often secured after a single term, taxpayer-funded, and lifelong.

If politics is service, pensions are unnecessary.

If it is employment, pensions must be contributory and performance-linked, like any other profession. Anything else is entitlement masquerading as sacrifice.

Restoring Politics to Duty

Fair compensation is legitimate; privilege without discipline is not. A mature democracy must insist on minimum qualifications, ethical codes, governance training, transparent performance metrics, attendance requirements, loss of benefits for non-performance, and contributory pensions.

Without these, democracy risks becoming a welfare state for its rulers.

The Reckoning Democracy Cannot Avoid

When politics becomes a refuge for the unemployable, democracy decays from within. Power without proficiency and reward without responsibility breed not just cynicism, but justified public anger.

The recent hike in Odisha MLAs’ emoluments is not an isolated decision—it is a symptom of a deeper institutional rot. Until professionalism replaces patronage, and duty replaces entitlement, public resentment will not subside. Nor should it.

For in a democracy, anger at unearned privilege is not a threat—it is the last remaining instrument of reform.

NB

Repeated, self-approved hikes in emoluments are not justified in a state still grappling with low per-capita income, sharp regional disparities, and stressed public services. Benchmarking such increases against other states only serves to normalise a flawed practice; public office demands restraint and responsibility, not a competitive escalation of privileges.

This inevitably raises uncomfortable but necessary questions: what moral authority do lawmakers have to claim such exorbitant salaries? By what objective standards are their competence and educational merit assessed? What measurable contribution have they made toward improving governance and public welfare? And, most importantly, is there any credible system of reward for performance or punishment for failure?

A uniform emoluments structure for MLAs across the country is the need of the hour—and such remuneration should, at the very least, remain lower than that of Members of Parliament. Furthermore, the provision of multiple pensions is indefensible and must be abolished altogether.