|
Essay : One Nation One Election |
India is the largest Democracy in the World. Elections are the most important and integral part of politics in a democratic system of governance.
The goods and service tax (GST) come out as “One Nation, One Tax‟ idea. In the field of education New Education Policy “One Nation One Curriculum‟ construct. Likewise the notion of “One Nation One Election’ is a call for “Simultaneous Elections”, ideally simultaneous elections should imply that elections to all the three tiers of constitutional institutions take place in a synchronized and co-ordinated fashion. What this effectively means is that a voter casts his vote for electing members for all tiers of the Government on a single day.
It would be impractical and possibly impossible to synchronize and align election schedules to the third tier with that of Lok Sabha and State Assembly elections. Accordingly, the term “Simultaneous Elections” is defined as structuring the Indian election cycle in a manner that elections to Lok Sabha and State Assemblies are synchronized together.
Till 1960s, general and state elections were held combined in the period of single-party dominance by the Congress. But the advent of coalition politics led to premature dissolution of the Assemblies, altering timelines for the state elections.
It won’t be unreasonable to state that the Indian polity is perennially in an election mode. Barring a few exceptional years within a normal 5 year tenure of the Lok Sabha, the country witnesses, on an average, elections to about 5-7 State Assemblies every year.
The‟ idea of One Nation One Election‟ in India is a proposed electoral reform.
A call for simultaneous Lok Sabha and Vidhan Sabha elections has its merits in curtailing spends by political parties with large war chests used for manufacturing consent through advertisements, rallies and distributing freebies, as also channelling the state machinery needed for administering polls.
Recommendations:
1. In 1983, the Election Commission of India in its First Annual Report recommended holding simultaneous elections for the House of the People and the Legislative Assemblies of States.
2. The Law Commission of India in its 170th Report on “Reform of Electoral Laws” (1999) recommended holding simultaneous elections as a part of electoral reforms. The Commission noted that after 1967 holding of elections to the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies simultaneously got disrupted for several reasons such as frequent resort to Article 356 of the Constitution
3. 79th report of the parliamentary standing committee on Law and Justice recommended a two phase election schedule – one concurrent with Lok Sabha elections, the second in the mid-term of the Lok Sabha.
4. The Election Commission has also extended its in-principle support for the simultaneous elections.
5. In 2015, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice in its 79th Report suggested to hold simultaneous elections for long term good governance.
6. In January 2017, NITI Aayog prepared a working paper titled “Analysis of Simultaneous elections: the What, Why and How” in which proposal to conduct elections to the House of the People and the State Legislative Assembly, simultaneously was deliberated upon.
Pros:
1. Saving cost: The election procedure is not only prolonged and hectic but also expensive. Parties spend a lot on election campaigning, the amount that could be put to better use if they have to do that only at once for the general election as well as the state election.
2. Saving time: As one or the other state goes into election every year most of the time of political leaders including star campaigners is spent concentrating on strategies thereby creating a vacuum in politico-administrative setup. On the part of common people too, it would be time saving to cast both the votes together.
3. The policy paralysis that results from the imposition of the Model Code of Conduct during election time impacts the administration as except the routine administrative activities, other development programs, welfare schemes, capital projects etc. remain largely suspended till the time the model code is applicable and in the area it is in operation.
4. Spirit of Policymaking: The fear of losing voters prevents politicians from encouraging the passage of policies that require immediate attention. A combined election procedure would give them ample time to concentrate on policymaking without having to worry about the votes being gained or lost.
5. Continuity in policies and programmes would be ensured because of stability and less distractions and breaks.
6. Efficiency of Governance: Populist measures by governments will reduce as most of the populist measures are announced during the election or pre-election.
7. Conducting elections is a mammoth, complex and time consuming activity. The Election Commission of India takes help of a significant number of polling officials as well as armed forces to ensure smooth, peaceful and impartial polls. Considering that about 2-5 State Assemblies go to polls every 6 months, this situation leads to a lock-in of CAPF and state police forces for prolonged periods of time. Such a situation is clearly unwarranted as it takes away a portion of such armed police force which could otherwise be better deployed for other internal security purposes – the basic responsibilities for which these forces were developed for.
8. The impact of black money on the voters will be reduced as all elections are held at a time.
9. Frequent elections perpetuate caste, religion and communal issues across the country:
For all these reasons, a regular, predictable nation-wide schedule for elections, and a nation-wide poll for all tiers of governments – national, state and local – at the same time would be helpful in improving governance.
One nation – one election should also create a mechanism to fill vacant seats that arise from time to time without bye elections, which disrupt governance as much as general elections.
But we should note that while simultaneous polls are desirable, they themselves do not radically alter the nature of our politics and governance. AP, Telangana and Odisha have simultaneous polls for Lok Sabha and Assemblies. Earlier Karnataka and other states too had such experience. In none of these states is there significant improvement of governance because of simultaneous polls alone. Clearly, one nation-one election is desirable; but it is a minor change and does not in itself improve our democratic process and governance.
Cons:
1. Hard Task: elections in India are a complex and involves months of preparation starting from updating electoral rolls to the counting day, There may be shortage of administrative staff and security to look after the procedure if elections are held together.
2. Frequent elections play the role of checks and balances: Politicians are kept on their toes when they are regularly worried about the routine elections that they need to be presentable for. They know they are accountable for the actions of their party member and anything going wrong could mean snatching of their powers.
3. Forcing the representatives to take decisions and immediate actions of public importance: most of the populist measures are usually taken during elections. Cutting down on elections would mean making them unaccountable for the rest of the term and suddenly becoming overactive during the election year.
4. Combination of National and Regional issues: Taking both the elections together will also mean mixing up the national issues with those of the state. The national issues would overpower the state which in turn would get less priority from the politicians.
5. Simultaneous elections threaten the federal character of our democracy as a strong central power would sweep the regional parties with limited base and resources.
6. Large national parties would reap the economies of scale of one large election every five years, to the disadvantage of regional parties.
7. It is against the constitutional fabric.
8. Many jobs are created during elections, boosting the economy at the grass-root levels
Challenges :
Holding simultaneous elections will bring with it certain requirements as given below:
1. Curtailment and extension of terms of the House of the People/ State Legislative Assemblies;
2. Amendment to the relevant provisions of the Constitution
· Article 83 of the Constitution provides for the tenure of both Houses of the Parliament.
· Article 83(2) provides for a term of five years for Lok Sabha, from the date of its first sitting unless dissolved earlier.
· Article 172 (1) provides for five year tenure for State Legislative Assembly from the date of its first sitting.
· The provision to Article 83 (2) of the Constitution provides that when a proclamation of emergency is in operation, the term of the House may be extended for a period not exceeding one year at a time by Parliament by law and not extending in any case beyond a period of six months after the Proclamation has ceased to operate.
· Similar provision also exists for State Legislative Assembly under the proviso to Article 172 (1) of the Constitution.
· Article 85 (2)(b) of the Constitution of India provides the President with the power to dissolve Lok Sabha. Similar provision for dissolution of State Legislative Assemblies by the Governor of State is provided under Article 174 (2)(b)
The above provisions effectively mean that the tenure of the House cannot be extended beyond 5 years except in emergency but it can be prematurely dissolved before expiration of its tenure.
3. Amendment to the Representation of People Act, 1951
4. The ratification by the States to these Constitutional amendments.
5. Political parties were divided on the issue of holding simultaneous elections during consultations with the Law Commission of India.
6. Simultaneous elections would involve arbitrary curtailment or extension of the tenure of a House — the legal propriety of which is questionable.
7. Such a measure would undermine federalism as well as representative democracy.
8. In the Parliamentary form of government, government is accountable to Loksabha and when it loses the vote of confidence, government can fall before it completes its term.
9. Need of political consensus which is hard to achieve given the inherent differences and biases.
Considering Indian demographics and the ever increasing expectations of the young population, it is imperative to remove impediments to governance and to remove it expeditiously. In a recent public forum, the Hon’ble Prime Minister remarked “If India is to meet the challenge of change, mere incremental progress is not enough. A metamorphosis is needed….My vision for India is rapid transformation, not gradual evolution”. Unlike gradual, incremental measures, transformative measures typically involve short-term pains and hence are seen as politically risky and unpopular to implement.
Frequent elections, therefore, crowd Government’s risk taking capabilities and incentivize it to opt the safer status-quo’ist approach instead. Getting out of this “permanent election mode” will therefore be a structural change in mindset that could potentially provide the much needed space to Governments to focus on long-term transformational measures without worrying about the next impending election.
As a way forward, a focused group of stakeholders comprising constitution and subject matter experts, think tanks, government officials and representatives of various political parties can come together and work out appropriate implementation related details. This may include drafting appropriate constitution and statutory amendments, agreeing on a workable framework to facilitate transition to simultaneous elections, developing a stakeholder communication plan etc.
As is the case with long-term structural reforms, implementing this measure would also cause some short-term pain. However, this would be a stepping stone towards improved governance and a larger initiation of “electoral reforms” – a desperately needed measure to re-boot the Indian polity.
