The Union Government recently notified an eight-member high-level committee, headed by former President Ram Nath Kovind, to examine and make recommendations for the ‘one nation, one election; policy. This would enable simultaneous elections to the Lok Sabha, State Assemblies and local bodies.
This is not a new concept. India has held all national and state elections simultaneously from 1951 until 1967, but with evolving domestic systems, separate elections for the Lok Sabha and Vidhan Sabha began to be held after.
The proposal for reverting to simultaneous elections has far-reaching implications for Indias democracy and some argue that it questions its very essence.
The Law Commission, NITI Aayog and a Parliamentary Standing Committee have all looked into this proposal., which has had support from ex-PM Atal Bihari Vajpaayee. ‘
PM Modi has himself strongly pitched for simultaneous elections and repeatedly said that continuous election cycles cause development to suffer, as the political leaders get stuck in election cycles.
The idea’s revival at a time when the government is facing challenges amid the growing consolidation of the Opposition under the Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance (INDIA) raises important questions.
The committee is to recommend ways of implementing the policy. It is interesting to note there are no former or current election commissioners on the panel, even though they may be best placed to highlight logistical issues in conducting elections in one go.
The most crucial point for the committee is to examine and recommend whether the consent of the states is required at all, even though simultaneous elections has a direct bearing on the states.
The fact that it will also suggest amendments to the Constitution and laws as may be required for holding simultaneous elections indicates that the decision has already been taken, making it in essence, ‘undemocratic.’
However, there is no practical way to implement simultaneous elections it in a parliamentary democracy. Implementation involves not only practical challenges, but also complex legal and constitutional considerations. It will require multiple constitutional amendments. The proposal cannot be implemented unless a two-thirds majority in both Houses of Parliament votes for the necessary amendments.
State governments, whose tenures will be affected, need to be in agreement.
Opposition parties in non-BJP ruled states or those not aligned with the BJP are unlikely to agree to a proposal that diminishes their political clout.
All existing Assemblies would need to be dissolved, all different tenures would be brought under a uniform period of five years for both the Lok Sabha and Vidhan Sabha, something not present pr provided for in the Constitution currently.
Given so many challenges, why is the BJP pushing the idea? Basically, it wants to nationalise and centralise elections because the party has very few credible state leaders to lead the fight in the state elections and fewer with the pull and personality cult that the current PM enjoys.
This has been a matter of concern for the BJP, especially after its defeat in Karnataka.
State and national elections in India are often fought on different sets of issues; simultaneous elections might change this, as voters may end up considering national issues over local issues, which can tilt the voting preference towards the BJP.
But there is no guarantee that one election will produce this outcome when voters make their ballot choices.
The idea of one nation, one election is thus not feasible in Indias vastly diverse polity which has given rise to numerous parties in the states, whose interests are defined by their respective regions and cultures.
This situation cannot be remedied by mandating a fixed term for the legislature or a fixed election calendar.
The Lok Sabhas term has nothing to do with that of the Vidhan Sabha, which depends largely on the way electoral politics plays out within states.
Divergence of electoral cycles will obviously be there in this situation and cannot be fit into the BJPs strategy of a Hindu nation-state at the expense of the state-based processes and federalism.
The move will accelerate cookie-cutter elections, underlining a deep distrust of the plurality of Indian polity and society, which sets the nation apart globally.
It will end up restricting the most fundamental freedom of a democracy, voting.