ELECTIONS OPINION
E
VEN before the new Lok Sabha started func-
tioning, the PM called an all-party meeting on
June 19 to discuss, among other things, the idea
of “one nation, one election”. This hurry is baf-
fling. While a number of parties abstained, a
div ersity of opinion was expressed by those who
attended. The CPI(M) argued that holding simulta-
neous elections to three tiers together “would require
tampering with the Constitutional scheme of acc-
ountability of the government to the legislature”.
The BJD expressed strong support, while the
AIADMK and YSR Congress expressed qualified
support. It is clear that there is no consensus.
The issue was dwelt upon by the Law Commission
in 1999, and the parliamentary standing committee
in 2015 and the Election Commission of India sup-
ported it in principle. The idea, prima facie, is appeal-
ing for various reasons. First, the cost of elections. In
2019, it was a whopping Rs 60,000 crore, double of
the 2014 elections. The seizure of drugs, cash, liquor
and other freebies distributed to lure voters worth Rs
3,400 crore has doubled since the previous general
election. Second, it is argued that there are frequent
disruptions of normal development activities bec-
ause of the model code. There is another big down-
side that the PM has not mentioned—casteism,
communalism, corruption and crony capitalism are
on full display in every election.
For the Election Commission, simultaneous elec-
tions are both convenient and logical as the voters,
the polling booths, the poll staff and the security
personnel are all the same. But the contrary views are
equally strong. The vote is arguably the only power
of the poor and frequent elections mean politicians
have to show their faces to their voters regularly!
In the constitutional scheme of things, separate
elections are consistent with a federal polity as local,
state and national issues are equally important and
must not be mixed up. Separate elections give space
to regional parties to find their political voice. It
seems inappropriate to subjugate the people’s man-
date at the local level to the whims of the politics
beyond. It is grassroots democracy in action, regard-
less of inconvenience to some.
The constitutional ramifications are extremely
significant. In April 2018, the Law Commissionconcluded in a draft working paper that it would
involve amendments to the Constitution’s articles
83, 85, 172, 174 and 356, and the 10th Schedule,
besides the Representation of the People Act, 1951,
and the Rules of Procedure of both the Lok Sabha
and the Vidhan Sabha. These amendments can be
legally challenged in the light of the doctrine of
“basic structure of the Constitution” enshrined in
the Kesavananada Bharati case of 1973.
Of the 17 Lok Sabhas so far, seven were prematurely
dissolved (in 1969, 1980, 1984, 1996, 1998, 1999 and
2004). Governments have been more stable in more
recent times due to the anti-defection law (1985) and
the S.R. Bommai Case (1994), but stability is not
guaranteed. How will simultaneous elections work if
the Lok Sabha or a Vidhan Sabha is prematurely
dissolved? Will all assemblies go to the polls again, or
will there be prolonged spells of President’s rule?
It is suggested that every “no confidence motion”
must carry with it a motion of “confidence in the
alternative government”, as in Germany. It does
not, however, address situations caused by the
coalition partner(s) walking out.
Until a consensus is built, can we not look at prac-
tical alternatives to bring down costs and reduce the
disruptions due to prolonged elections? The govern-
ment can put a limit on the expenditure by parties.
Prolonged disruption of development activities can
be remedied by reducing the poll period to 30-35
days in a single phase election. Voters’ security is the
only reason for staggered elections. Elections can
happen even in a single day if approximately four
times the central security forces are provided com-
pared to what the Election Commission got in 2014.
The original proposal was for simultaneous polls to
all three tiers—Lok Sabha (543 MPs, Vidhan Sabha
(4,120 MLAs) and the panchayats/municipalities
(30 lakh members). With panchayats quietly forgot-
ten, and the Niti Aayog and the parliamentary
standing committee suggesting polls in two bunches
for the remaining two tiers every five years, the pro-
posal is already too diluted to be top priority when
key electoral reforms have been languishing. O
(The writer is former chief election commissioner of
India and author of An Undocumented Wonder:
The Making of the Great Indian Election)FAST ROAD
TO NOWHERE
Simultaneous national and state polls is not the electoral reform we need most
S.Y. QURAISHI
There are
practical
alternatives
that can
bring down
costs and
reduce the
disruption
due to
prolonged
elections.26 OUTLOOK 8 July 2019