Advocating for ‘One Nation, One Election‘ or simultaneous elections for both Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies is not a novel concept. This idea holds significant importance for Prime Minister Modi and merits thorough understanding.
In this article, I’ll explore the essence of simultaneous elections, its historical context in India, arguments supporting it, opposing viewpoints, and whether it might serve as a diversion, as suggested by some critics. Additionally, we’ll delve into the potential path forward in the realm of Indian elections.
What does One Nation One Election mean?
To begin with, simultaneous elections refer to aligning the electoral cycles of the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies to occur concurrently. However, this synchronization doesn’t entail conducting elections nationwide on a single day or time.
Instead, it allows for multi-phase elections, varying from three to nine phases, where voters cast their ballots for both their local MLA and Lok Sabha representative using separate Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs).
The idea of simultaneous elections isn’t new to India. The initial general election in 1951-52 witnessed simultaneous polling for both Lok Sabha and all state legislative assemblies, which persisted for the subsequent three elections—1957, 1962, and 1967. However, this pattern was disrupted due to certain state legislative assemblies being dissolved prematurely in 1968-69, alongside the premature dissolution of the Lok Sabha in 1970, owing to internal political developments within the Congress Party.
Efforts to revert to simultaneous elections surfaced in 1983 when the Election Commission of India proposed this shift. Subsequent recommendations in this regard emerged in the 170th report by the Law Commission in 1999, the 79th parliamentary standing committee report on law and justice in 2015, and a research paper by NITI Aayog in 2017 titled ‘Analysis of Simultaneous Elections: What, Why, and How.‘ Each of these proposals urged a return to simultaneous elections.
Examining the rationale supporting simultaneous elections, we’ll scrutinize arguments in favour of this approach before delving into counterarguments against it.
Why we need ‘One Nation One Election’?
Towards the conclusion of 2018, elections were held in Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Chhattisgarh. Following the 2019 Lok Sabha elections, subsequent polls took place in Maharashtra, Haryana, Jharkhand, the Delhi legislative assembly, Bihar, and in 2021 elections happened in the Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, and Puducherry Legislative Assembly. This ongoing sequence of elections portrays a perpetual cycle, prompting some to suggest a return to simultaneous elections.
The rationale behind this suggestion lies in several factors. Firstly, the order issued by the Tamil Nadu state government highlights the recruitment of three lakh teachers, encompassing both private and government schools, for election-related duties scheduled in May 2021.
However, this decision intersects with the reopening of schools, creating a clash in utilizing these teachers for educational purposes versus their election responsibilities. This clash disrupts the school schedule, demonstrating the societal impact of frequent elections.
Moreover, frequent elections trigger the enforcement of the model code of conduct, which restrains the ruling political party from launching new schemes or policies until the election results are declared.
This code introduces limitations on the governance process, inducing a policy paralysis affecting developmental programs and welfare schemes. The expenditure incurred by the government during these recurring elections is another concern, emphasizing the financial burden associated with conducting separate Lok Sabha and state legislative assembly polls.
Additionally, the prolonged engagement of security forces during election periods, such as the 16th Lok Sabha election, involves a massive deployment of personnel, causing strain on internal security operations.
This prolonged engagement disrupts the routine duties of paramilitary forces responsible for internal security. Simultaneous elections could mitigate this strain by enabling these forces to focus solely on security matters for an extended period.
The chaotic atmosphere generated by frequent elections, including traffic congestion due to political rallies and the unfortunate rise in caste and communal conflicts just before election periods, could be addressed by conducting simultaneous elections once every five years. Such an approach could facilitate an environment of governance and tranquillity for the majority of the electoral cycle.
Furthermore, simultaneous elections could lead to a boost in voter turnout, diminishing the burden on ministers who are often preoccupied with campaign activities during multiple elections. This shift could allow leaders to dedicate more time to governance and resolving citizen grievances.
Ultimately, Prime Minister Modi echoes the sentiment that India’s progress demands a paradigm shift rather than gradual improvements. He advocates for a rapid transformation, asserting that simultaneous elections for both Lok Sabha and state legislative assemblies could be the key to achieving this vision.
Do we really need ‘One Nation One Election’?
However, let’s now address the arguments against proponents of simultaneous elections and examine the concerns raised by critics who oppose this approach.
Firstly, there’s the issue of operational feasibility. Consider a scenario where Lok Sabha elections align with elections across 28 states, each having a stable government except at the central Lok Sabha level, which leads to a coalition government. This disparity raises the question of whether stable state governments should be sacrificed due to the lack of stability at the center.
Implementing simultaneous elections becomes operationally challenging in such situations. Additionally, if some states have unstable governments post-elections, sustaining governance for the remaining tenure becomes a constitutional concern, potentially leading to extended periods of President’s rule in certain states.
Secondly, simultaneous elections might affect voter behaviour. Studies indicate that when Lok Sabha and state legislative assembly elections are conducted simultaneously, voters often cast similar proportions of votes for major political parties in both elections.
This suggests voter confusion regarding whether they’re voting for national or state elections, leading to dominance of national issues over local concerns. Consequently, regional political parties might suffer, potentially transforming India’s federal structure into a unitary one dominated by national political entities.
However, countering this argument, instances like the 2019 Odisha elections showed voters’ capability to distinguish between national and local elections. Despite voting overwhelmingly for a regional party in the state legislative assembly elections, they voted for a different party in the Lok Sabha elections, indicating that voters can differentiate between the two.
Thirdly, critics argue that simultaneous elections could curtail the voices of marginalized communities and weaken regional political parties, reducing accountability among elected representatives. The infrequency of elections might cause politicians to overlook the grievances of the people, decreasing accountability and limiting mechanisms like the right to recall.
Moreover, opponents suggest that frequent elections contribute to job creation through increased advertising and campaigning activities. They argue that periodic elections create more job opportunities and stimulate economic activity, making a case against the consolidation of elections.
Lastly, finding a suitable time slot for simultaneous elections poses a significant challenge due to India’s diverse geography, weather conditions, festivals, and examinations occurring at different times across the nation. This diversity complicates the identification of an appropriate time slot for synchronized elections.
These arguments and concerns against simultaneous elections underline the complexities and potential drawbacks associated with implementing this approach in India’s diverse and intricate political landscape.
Also Read: Why Assam Floods Every Year?
Simultaneous Elections around the Globe
However, let’s explore the global landscape. Consider Sweden, where elections for local councils, county councils, municipal councils, and the legislature occur simultaneously. If Sweden can execute this, why can’t we in India?
Similarly, South Africa conducts elections for provincial legislatures and national legislatures simultaneously. Drawing inspiration from South Africa, which has influenced various provisions in our constitution, should prompt us to consider adopting this approach.
In the United Kingdom, the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 prescribes a fixed tenure for the House of Commons, ensuring a five-year term with provisions for mid-term elections if two-thirds of its members vote for fresh elections or in case of a vote of no confidence against the Prime Minister, leading to a fresh government or elections.
A similar framework could be considered in India to establish a fixed term for our legislatures, aligning with the UK’s model.
Examining Germany, the Bundestag, the lower house of the German parliament, operates under a constructive vote of no confidence. This means that a vote of no confidence must be accompanied by a vote of confidence.
Applying this model in India would necessitate a constitutional amendment, establishing fixed terms for our legislatures and modifying Article 356, which addresses the breakdown of constitutional machinery in a state, leading to the imposition of President’s rule and subsequent dissolution of the state legislative assembly. These amendments would be essential to facilitate the implementation of simultaneous elections in our country.
Is ’One Nation One Election’ a distraction?
Let’s delve into another argument posed by critics who dismiss the notion of simultaneous elections as a mere diversion, detracting attention from the substantial issues. They argue that ensuring the integrity of our electoral process doesn’t hinge on simultaneous elections but requires reforms in other election-related aspects.
Critics question the rationale behind statements like “Why waste money on frequent elections?” by pointing out other instances of resource squandering, such as constructing new parliament houses like the Central Vista project or pursuing tenders for new aircraft for the president and prime minister. This emphasizes the need to redirect focus toward more pertinent matters rather than fixating solely on simultaneous elections.
Additionally, critics emphasize the urgency to address post-election defections, referencing incidents in Karnataka, Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh where members resigned, leading to a shift in government.
They highlight the imperative need to reform anti-defection laws. Proposed changes include disqualifying legislators who resign from contesting elections for the remaining term, thereby upholding the sanctity of electoral processes.
Another crucial area of concern highlighted by critics is the use of electoral bonds, which allow anonymous donations to political parties, raising transparency issues. Critics emphasize the necessity of transparency in political funding, emphasizing the need to phase out electoral bonds and focus on broader reforms.
Furthermore, they point out the disparity in spending regulations between candidates and political parties. While there are limits for individual candidates’ spending, political parties have no such restrictions. This inequity undermines the principle of free and fair elections, a foundational element of India’s constitutional framework.
Critics also challenge the notion that frequent elections impede governance, dismissing claims that “too much democracy is bad for India.” They underscore that democratic processes involve seeking the people’s mandate, which shouldn’t be viewed as anti-democratic but as a fundamental aspect of governance.
Moreover, they advocate for bringing political parties under the Right to Information Act (RTI) and exploring proportional representation systems to ensure fairer representation based on the votes received.
Ultimately, critics urge a shift in focus from simultaneous elections to addressing critical issues like electoral reforms, anti-defection laws, transparency in political funding, spending regulations for political parties, and structural changes in the electoral system itself.
Suggestion and Conclusion on “One Nation One Election”
What if, despite opposition to the concept of simultaneous elections, we explore a middle ground? It’s evident that the current system of frequent elections is undesirable. So, let’s consider a compromise.
Even if simultaneous elections aren’t favoured, can we at least merge the Lok Sabha election to occur once every five years with state legislative assembly elections? This would mean having a national election and all state legislature assembly elections simultaneously.
Moreover, if this doesn’t suffice, there’s another compromise to consider. For instance, if the next Lok Sabha election is scheduled for 2024, we could conduct the general election in 2024, followed by state elections in 2026 for half of the state legislative assemblies, and subsequently in 2028 for the remaining half. This strategy aims to avoid the undesired scenario of staggered elections across various states throughout the same year.
Furthermore, to address the issues stemming from multiple elections within a year, another compromise could be to consolidate elections within one calendar year. By clubbing together elections falling within a single calendar year, we could allocate a specific period for elections, mitigating the adverse effects of frequent electoral cycles.
This proposal aligns with the concept of simultaneous elections and presents an alternative compromise to alleviate the challenges posed by frequent elections.
Thank you for taking the time to read this! Please share this article if you enjoyed it. Also, you can follow us on Instagram, Facebook, LinkedIn, and Pinterest to get more interesting articles.