One Nation, One Election: A Proposition Easier Said Than Done

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government has shown clear intent this time around by forming an eight-member committee last Friday, mandated to examine the constitutional and logistical feasibility of conducting simultaneous elections. The committee must suggest amendments to the constitution tofacilitate the shift and outline a framework for nationwide polls for electing both central and state governments. The panel is also expected to provide guidelines on how to handle hung parliament or assembly, or no-confidence motions or issues arising due to defection.

The proposal, an idea Modi has been advocating for long, has to pass several constitutional and political hurdles before it finally becomes the law of the land.

The intent of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) doesn’t look like holding simultaneous elections in May 2024, though the party has all the political ammunition for pushing through the required constitutional amendments before the general election, said Saptagiri Ulaka, Congress party’s Lok Sabha Member of Parliament (MP) from Koraput, Odisha.

The BJP could be attempting to create a perception that it has started working on the concept listed in its 2019 manifesto, Ulaka said, adding that only after the inauguration of the Ram temple in Ayodhya, which is closely linked with the BJP’s electoral prospects, would Modi opt for holding simultaneous elections.

Sanjay Hegde, senior advocate at the Supreme Court and a constitutional expert, said that if the BJP’s objective was to hold simultaneous elections, the five amendments - in Articles 83, 85, 172, 174 and 356 - outlined by the Law Commission in 2018 - seem to hold ground. He said that if the objectiveincludes holding the elections on a particular date, additional legal requirements could also come up.

Out of the four states - Andhra Pradesh, Odisha, Arunachal Pradesh, and Sikkim – which currently hold simultaneous elections, regional parties wield power in three.

Research suggests a higher probability of votes cast for the same party for both the state and the centre when elections are held simultaneously. A 2015 study by the IDFC Institute, an independent think tank, found this behaviour to be true for 68% of voters in states where simultaneous polls were held in 1999. The figure rose to about 77% in 2004 and 2009, and in 2014, when the BJP swept topower, it jumped to 86%.

Hegde disagrees with the speculation that in the scenario of synchronized elections, the party in power at the centre would have an unfair advantage over others. However, in the case of wave elections, when a significant electoral shift favours one party, other results are also very much possible, he said.

The Aye and Noes

Those favouring synchronized elections say that the move will yield substantial savings – of around Rs 5,500 crore - which India spends on assembly elections across all states. Instead, this can be utilized for developmental projects, they say. It will also significantly reduce the election expenses of political parties if elections are held simultaneously, a possibility which Hegde broadly agrees with.

A seemingly continuous election cycle impacts administration and development work as political parties would not be able to announce new schemes due to the Model Code of Conduct restrictions, they argue, leading to policy paralysis. Besides, election duties make the political executive and government officials neglect routine administration. Lastly, the deployment of security forces — statepolice, the paramilitary, and the army — for conducting free and fair elections would be a one-off, thereby enhancing their availability to maintain law and order within the country and along itsborders.

Meanwhile, those opposing the proposal say the expenditure incurred is not a huge price to pay for maintaining the world’s largest democracy. The Election Commission of India incurred roughly Rs 8,000 crore to conduct all state and federal elections in a span of five years, which worked out to a cost of Rs 27 per voter per year to protect India as an electoral democracy, Praveen Chakravarty wrote in The Hindu in December 2017.

Even if this figure might have doubled by now, considering that citizens need to vote only twice during five years – once for the Lok Sabha and the other for state elections - the cost would still be nominal. In fact, those opposing the move argue that the political parties end up spending extravagantly in elections, most of which are not properly accounted for, nor are they keen to bring in reforms to drastically minimize expenses.

Since the model code of conduct is imposed nationwide only once in five years, it stays more state-specific and doesn’t impact the rest when elections are held in one or a few states, they say. Moreover, since it doesn’t apply to previously launched or continuing projects, with some advance planning, the governments can ensure minimal disruptions to the development process.

As for the security personnel deployment, they contend that simultaneous elections would stretch the security forces in a huge country like India, where even some state elections are held in several phases. This could lead to potential vulnerabilities.

Legal Labyrinth

The opposition parties have called the move undemocratic, as the elected state assemblies would have to be dissolved to implement this uniform election vision. They consider it against the principle of federalism.

It would eliminate the freedom of states to call elections whenever an incumbent government desires, infringing the federal spirit built into the constitution and therefore, cannot be altered or destroyed through constitutional amendments, without undergoing judicial review by the Supreme Court.

For any constitutional amendment, a two-thirds majority in both Houses of Parliament must vote for the necessary amendments. Besides, those state governments whose tenures will be affected should also be in agreement.

The call for a special five-day session of parliament from September 18th has fuelled speculation that the government may table a bill for simultaneous elections, rankling the opposition parties.

The Story So Far

Post-independence, India held simultaneous elections to the Lok Sabha and the state assemblies from 1952 to 1967. The cycle was first broken in 1959 after the Centre invoked Article 356 of the Constitution to dismiss the then-Kerala government. Subsequently, the premature dissolution of some state assemblies and the Lok Sabha in 1970, ended this.

Five states are due for elections this year, while the general elections are due in May 2024.

The current buzz around ‘one nation, one election’ began in 2018 when the Law Commission of India, in its draft recommendation, suggested it as the solution to prevent the country from being in constant election mode.

Given the political and constitutional hurdles that the notion has to clear, it won’t be smooth sailing ahead. Expressing hope that the opposition parties would not contend the possible legislation just for the sake of it, former union minister and 1979-batch IAS officer K J Alphons wrote in the Indian Express, “I do not understand why any political party should have any problem if elections are heldsimultaneously, right up to the local bodies. It will save everybody a lot of headaches and money.”

(Dr Manoj Dash is a PhD in economics and independent researcher.Views expressed are personal)