The idea of ‘One Nation, One Election’ mooted by the Prime Minister, N Modi is being staunchly opposed by a big section of the political class even before the deliberations are kicked off [a meeting convened by the government on June 19, 2019 was boycotted by about 50% of the parties who were invited].
A major ground for their opposition is that this will be an onslaught on the federal polity. The critics opine that in a scenario of simultaneous poll to both the parliament and all the state assemblies, the national issues will dominate over the state specific subjects. This may yield fortuitous benefit to the dominant national party as the voter won’t be able to clearly articulate his/her choice while casting vote for electing members of the assembly.
The national party getting a clear majority in the Lok Sabha [lower house of the parliament] who does not enjoy the confidence of the state subjects on local issues will thus get to rule a particular state as well. Such an outcome will be in violation of the federal character of the constitution which envisages running the affairs of the state autonomously and in consonance with local needs.
Extrapolating this logic, we may land in a scenario whereby the national party gets to rule in all the states. Most opposition parties fear that in their [alleged] pursuit of dictatorship and one party rule, Modi-Shah duo intend to use the ‘One Nation, One Election’ idea to install and perpetuate BJP-led government in all parts of the country. The entire thought process is seriously flawed.
The founding fathers of Indian constitution had contemplated simultaneous elections only. Indeed, things were on right track till mid-60, when the then ruling dispensation disturbed the apple-cart by ‘premature’ dissolution of some state assemblies [1968/1969] and Lok Sabha [1970]. Over time, the mis-match got aggravated with dissolution of many more assemblies.
If, during that period [from 1952 to 1967] when elections to both the Lok Sabha and state assemblies were held concurrently, everything was hunky dory, how come now, restoration of that very dispensation be construed as an assault on federalism?
The hard fact is that happenings from mid-60s onward were unconstitutional. On numerous occasions, there was blatant misuse of Article 356 to dismiss elected governments ‘prematurely’ which led to the ‘unintended’ consequence of glaring mismatch in timing of election to the state assemblies vis-a-vis the Union of India. The misuse of the Article has now more or less stopped, but the country is still grappling with the unintended outcome.
Holding elections to one state assembly or the other every year besides the general election imposes unprecedented social and economic cost on the nation. The money spent on conducting elections to Lok Sabha is humongous about Rs 4500 crore [the elections to 2-3 assemblies every year would cost at least Rs 500 crore plus]. In addition, political parties spend tens of thousand crore.
The bigger damage arises due to distraction from issues of governance [as the parties have to be in election mode all through] even as imposition of the Model Code of Conduct [MCC] – each time an election exercise is taken up – leads to stoppage of all major policy decisions which impedes development [a case in point is delay in completion of the ‘dedicated freight corridor’ project].
Furthermore, with almost every political party prone to promising more and more sops/subsidies to win elections, no incumbent has the guts to implement hard reforms which would entail withdrawal of certain subsidies viz. fertilizers, power etc especially to the better-off sections of the society or not so poor.
So, the subsisting chaotic system has to go and the ‘One Nation, One Election’ installed in sync with the intent of our forefathers. Any apprehension that while voting at the same time for parliament and state assembly, the choice of the voter will get blunted is without any basis. To think in this manner will tantamount to questioning the ability of the voters to distinguish between local and national issues. That they are fully enlightened and take rational decision [uninfluenced by any external factor including the timing of exercising franchise] is amply corroborated by the following.
In the just concluded general elections, the election to some state assemblies’ viz. Andhra Pradesh, and Odisha were held co-terminus with elections to Lok Sabha [LS]. Despite an overarching national narrative and a Modi – wave, the voters in the mentioned states showed a clear preference for the regional parties namely YSR Congress and BJD who got an absolute majority. Just because they exercised franchise at the same time for LS and the state did not deter them from giving overriding importance to the local issues.
There is no threat to the federal polity when concurrent elections are held. As regards, the government collapsing before its mandated term of 5 years, this can’t be allowed as a matter of routine. The public gives a mandate to the ruling dispensation run its full term and all stakeholders should ensure that this is honored. If, at all such a scenario arises [which will be rare], the house may either elect a new leader; alternatively, election may be held for the residual term.
In any case, merely because such a scenario could arise, this can’t be used to justify continuation of subsisting state of affairs
‘One Nation, One Election’ is an idea whose actualization can’t be postponed any further. This will enable both centre and states to focus on governance for full 5 years without any distraction and implement structural reforms for sustainable development besides saving tens of thousands crore in election expenses.
All parties need to work to make it happen from 2024 when the next Lok Sabha election is due. While, ruling parties in states whose term will expire before 2024 should have no qualm, others whose term will end after 2024, will have to cut it short. The latter ought not to have any grudge in agreeing to it in the overall national interest.