The central government, motivated by a desire for efficiency and progress, set up a committee to investigate the viability of ‘one nation, one election’ in September 2023. The committee, which is led by former president, Ram Nath Kovind, has been tasked with investigating how the nation may resume holding simultaneous elections for the Lok Sabha and state legislatures, as it did up until 1967. In India, the concept of simultaneous elections is not new, as until 1967, it was the norm. Elections to state assemblies and Parliament, however, have been held separately since the dissolution of several legislative assemblies in 1968 and 1969 and that of the Lok Sabha in December 1970. The Election Commission’s 1983 annual report made the case for going back to simultaneous voting. It was mentioned in the Law Commission’s Report in 1999 as well. In January 2017, the NITI Aayog created a working paper on the same. Further, in August 2018, the Law Commission sent a draft report to the government and suggested amending the Constitution and the electoral code to allow for the staging of simultaneous elections.
As reported by India Today, the main advantages of ‘one nation, one election’ include lowering election costs because holding separate elections requires significant financial resources. It also reduces the workload for the security and administrative teams, who would otherwise be involved in several election-related tasks. ‘One nation, one election’ will allow the administration to concentrate more on governance rather than being in the election mode, which frequently impedes the implementation of policies.
According to the Asian News International (ANI), there are a few cons also like ‘one nation, one election’ would need a constitutional amendment and then it would need to be taken to state assemblies. There is worry that regional issues might get overshadowed by the national issues, affecting the electoral outcome at the state level.
As per the former Union minister and BJP leader, Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi, in his interview with The Hindu, ‘one nation, one election’ is the need of the hour and that political parties should not have a ‘prejudiced mindset’ on the issue. Political parties need to give priority to national interests over political interests so that this ‘significant and path-breaking’ electoral reform can take place. With one or other election being held at regular intervals, all political parties remain ‘election machines all the time’. This also causes wastage of public money and hampers development work. People, too, become unenthusiastic towards this ‘festival of democracy’ due to frequent elections.
On working of simultaneous elections, The Hindu explains, there were two proposals to conduct simultaneous elections along with the 17th Lok Sabha elections. However, both did not materialise. One proposal was to make the shift to simultaneous polls in a phased manner, where general elections, 12 state assemblies (which by themselves face elections in late 2018 or 2019) and a union territory may be synchronised in 2019, as the rest of the states are in the middle of their five-year term. The second option involved synchronisation in two batches. First, elections to the 12 state legislative assemblies and one union territory would be synchronised with elections to the Lok Sabha in 2019. Next, elections to the remaining state legislative assemblies will be synchronised with that of one union territory by the end of 2021. This makes elections across the country synchronised in such a manner that they will be held twice every five years.
The Indian Express reported that the idea of simultaneous elections points to a real problem but the solution it offers is dissonant in a parliamentary system with a federal framework—it promises, or threatens, to give it a more presidential and unitary character. Admittedly, the relentless election calendar in this country is taking a toll. An election is always around the corner and with expenditure caps freely given the go-by and campaign finance draped in secrecy, it means higher sums of money and other resources spent. It also means, after the model code of conduct kicks in, a pause, if not a paralysis of governance. Parties and governments with an eye on the impending election give in to the seductions of populist moves and shirk long-term policy and planning. But making elections simultaneous will, for one, impose an artificial fixity on the terms of legislatures in states and at the Centre—at odds with a system that, given its staggering diversity, must remain responsive and accountable. It will also raise questions like this one: What happens if, after simultaneous polls, a five-year term in an assembly is interrupted by political realignments? Then, simultaneous elections are likely to help the dominant national party and incumbent at the Centre and disadvantage the regional issue and player. They could flatten the diversity of format and politics that marks India’s federal polity ever since the sixties when the synchronicity of the election calendar was first broken along with the appearance of the first dents in the Congress-led one-party dominance system.
On meeting of any uniformity, The Indian Express sights that the Opposition is wary of a concept that would take away the regional element of state polls, and leave regional personalities overshadowed by national leaders. The hugely expanding BJP, on the other hand, included the idea in its poll manifesto. With Prime Minister Modi as its face, a single campaign and election would take care of all assemblies and the Lok Sabha. Swaraj India president Yogendra Yadav has said the idea amounts to ‘one nation, one election, one party, one leader.’
Apurva Vishwanath in her ‘Explained’ part of The Indian Express focuses on the amendments needed for ‘one nation, one election’. She argues that it would take at least five constitutional reforms, as well as a significant number of new electronic voting machines (EVMs) and paper-trail equipment, to hold simultaneous elections for the Lok Sabha and state assemblies. The five amendments to the Constitution would affect Article 83, which deals with how long Houses of Parliament last; Article 85, which deals with how the President dissolves the Lok Sabha; Article 172, which deals with how long state legislatures last; Article 174, which deals with the governor’s power to call the House or House of state legislature, not later than six months from the date and time of its last sitting in a session; and Article 356, which deals with the imposition of president’s rule in states.
In his editorial in The Economic Times, Nilanjan Mukhopadhyay argued that the primary reason why ‘one nation, one election’ has been rejected by critics is the fear that synchronised elections will be little other than a synonym for ‘ritualistic polls’ and the power of states, including determining their electoral calendar. History tells us that simultaneous polls were not a conscious choice, but the result of post-independence circumstances.
According to the Centre, it would explore the options around ‘one nation-one election’. Former Chief Election Commissioner of India O.P. Rawat in his interview with the mint, cited that it is possible to implement the proposal, but some conditions need to be met. “Some amendments will have to be made in the Constitution and Representation of People Act, 1951. Along with that, we would require additional funds and time to manufacture VVPATs and EVMs and additional deployment of paramilitary forces will also be required.”
Congress leader Shashi Tharoor while talking to reporters of ThePrint criticised the BJP-led Centre’s proposal for ‘one nation, one election’, saying there is no practical way in which such a system can be implemented. The second concern that many of us have is that the big diversity of India benefits from the staggered calendar that has evolved over the years.
© Spectrum Books Pvt Ltd.