India, the world’s largest democracy, practiced simultaneous elections shortly after her independence, a practice the government, led by Narendra Modi, seeks to reintroduce once more through the ‘One Nation, One Election’ bill. This proposal, while it has bearers of the torch, also met with its fair share of skeptics. The proponents argue that this bill will serve as an agent of capital conservation and enhance the quality of governance. However, naysayers of this reform are quick to point out that it threatens to erode accountability and underminine the principles of federalism.
The ‘One Nation, One Election’ concept isn’t a novel concept – the seeds were sown in the early years following India’s independence. From 1952 to 1967, harmonised elections for Lok Sabha and various state legislatures were common practice. This practice, however, began to wane amidst ensuing political turbulence. In 1959, the near-disastrous dismissal of the Kerala’s Communist government following dramatic opposition from religious and political factions is but one such instance.
By 1968, Haryana became another pawn on the political chessboard as rampant defections led to the dissolution of the assembly, leading to re-elections and thus establishing a distinct electoral timetable. Further discord was sown in 1971 as Indira Gandhi unwisely dissolved the Lok Sabha prematurely in an attempt to fortify her position after the Congress party split. As we see, short-sighted decisions like these only begot more chaos and gradually dislocated the synchronization of national and state elections.
Designed to counter such rampant political turmoil, the concept of combined elections was first proposed by the Law Commission of India in 1983. Pitched as an antidote to continual disruptions and financial stress of frequent elections, the proposal was resurrected in the 1990s, largely due to coalition politics and midterm elections. Despite the proposal’s prevalence, it struggled in gaining supporting momentum and remained largely unnoticed.
In 1999, the Vajpayee government took up the mantle to bring this issue back to the fore. Making strides to echo the idea, by 2010, the Election Commission of India was advocating for ‘One Nation, One Election’ as an effective measure to curb election related expenditures and political interruptions. The tide finally turned in favour of this reform in 2016 when Prime Minister Modi resurrected the proposal. By the subsequent year, the Law Commission undertook a comprehensive study of the matter. Fast forward to 2023, a committee, under the leadership of the former president Ram Nath Kovind, was formed to evaluate the feasibility of this initiative.
The Kovind committee’s report concluded that the regularity of elections meant the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) was frequently in place. They allege this hindered major policy decisions and slowed the gears of governance. Synchronized elections, they propose, could alleviate this issue, fostering a more smoothly running government. This claim that the Model Code of Conduct induces policy paralysis seems to be overstated, however. After all, the MCC doesn’t haltongoing policies or programs in their tracks. It merely restricts novel program launches and is applicable only in the regions with impending elections.
The committee also pointed that the financial burden of scattered elections could be mitigated by synchronized voting. Combining elections could potentially proliferate economic growth, spike up the GDP, and control inflation. Nevertheless, this also entails additional investments for extra Electronic Voting Machines and Voter Verified Paper Audit Trails, rounding up to an estimated cost of approximately Rs 4,500 crore. Yet, they contend that the aggregative expenditure would likely decrease in the course of time.
It is worth noting though, that while the allure of cost-recuperation is compelling, the contemporary cost of elections, in the grand design of the nation’s expenditure, is relatively nominal. The total fiscal expenditure for running the second Modi government from 2019 to 2024 amounted to Rs 16,255 crore, roughly Rs 3,251 crore annually. When juxtaposed with the full spectrum of Union government expenses, it equates to only about 0.09% – a fraction hardly worthy of drastic reforms.
Simultaneously held elections could also potentially alleviate the travel burdens of migrant workers who often struggle to cast their votes. While this issue could be addressed by alternative solutions like postal ballots, there has been an argument regarding the consolidation of elections being a more comprehensive step. The Kovind Committee further contended that synchronized elections could ease the strain on governmental resources but they could not shy away from the fact that they might also introduce fresh challenges, like the need for additional personnel and security provisions.
The chore of simultaneously managing national and state elections could overstretch the administrative machinery. Another argument brought forth is that minimizing frequency of elections would reduce voter fatigue, enhancing overall voter engagement. Elections serve as an instrumental medium for governments to receive real-time public feedback, and their reduced frequency might impact this critical mechanism.
For example, after demonetization in 2016 and the introduction of GST in 2017, government reactions to public dissatisfaction were rapidly accelerated due to imminent elections. Holding elections every five years, however, could have an adverse effect on this response time, in turn affecting the development and adjustment of policies.
Under the umbrella of ‘One Nation One Election’, voters might be swayed to place increased emphasis on national issues during state elections. This could unfairly favor national parties, potentially undermining regional representation. Similarly, the growing popularity of regional parties in parliamentary elections could be stifled and national parties could unfairly benefit.
One of the main apprehensions surrounding the current proposal is the suggestion to truncate state assembly terms to align them with the Lok Sabha, with the reset supposed to kick-off in 2029. This raises serious concerns about the rights of the states and their ability to influence this critical decision. It goes without saying, that public sentiment will undoubtedly shape the future landscape of the nation’s electoral system, ultimately highlighting the need for careful consideration of all aspects.