Font size:
Print
Simultaneous Elections
Context:
Recent discussions about the prospect of simultaneous national and State elections in India, popularly referred to as “one nation, one election,” have sparked widespread debate.
More on News
- The proposal, which has been under consideration by a committee led by former President Ram Nath Kovind, aims to examine the constitutional changes required to make it feasible.
- Proponents of the idea argue that simultaneous elections would reduce the costs of conducting elections and free political parties from being in perpetual campaign mode, allowing them to focus on governance for a full five-year term.
- However, critics have raised significant concerns regarding both the practicality and the conceptual soundness of the proposal, suggesting that its drawbacks far outweigh its potential benefits.
Historical Background
Initial Implementation (1951-1967): The first general elections in India were held simultaneously for the Lok Sabha (House of People) and all State Legislative Assemblies in 1951-52. This practice continued for the subsequent elections in 1957, 1962, and 1967.
Disruption of the Cycle: The cycle of simultaneous elections was disrupted due to the premature dissolution of some Legislative Assemblies in 1968 and 1969, leading to staggered elections thereafter. In 1970, the Lok Sabha itself was dissolved prematurely, resulting in fresh elections in 1971. This marked a shift away from the previous practice of conducting simultaneous polls.
Arguments Against Simultaneous Elections
- Limited Financial Savings: While cost reduction is cited as a primary benefit, critics argue that the actual financial savings from simultaneous elections are relatively minor.
- Moreover, the current practice of central government leaders campaigning in State elections—a trend born out of the increasingly centralised nature of Indian electioneering—could be addressed through a simpler solution: delegating State-level campaigns to State party units.
- However, the reality of the “presidential-style” campaigning in India makes this solution difficult to implement.
- Logistical Challenges: The sheer logistical complexity of conducting simultaneous elections in a country of over 1.4 billion people is another significant hurdle.
- Even individual State elections often require multiple phases due to the scale and diversity of the electorate.
- Synchronising national and State elections across the country would exacerbate these logistical challenges.
- Impact on Parliamentary Democracy: The rigidity of a fixed election schedule is fundamentally at odds with the principles of parliamentary democracy.
- In India’s system, governments at both the central and State levels must enjoy the confidence of the House.
- If a government loses this confidence mid-term, it is required to resign and seek a fresh mandate through elections.
- While simultaneous elections may work for one cycle, they would unravel as soon as a government falls.
- Two proposed solutions to this problem—imposing President’s Rule until the next election cycle or conducting interim elections with truncated terms—are fraught with issues.
- The former undermines both federalism and democracy, while the latter negates the stated benefits of simultaneous elections, such as cost reduction and avoiding continuous campaigns.
- Increased Horse-Trading and Political Instability: The effort to prevent governments from falling mid-term could lead to an increase in defections and “horse-trading,” where political parties with greater financial resources manipulate legislators to secure their support.
Broader Concerns: Federalism and Democracy
- Federalism at Risk: Indian federalism is not merely an administrative arrangement but a recognition of the country’s linguistic, cultural, and ethnic diversity.
- Democracy functions at both the central and State levels, with distinct issues, aspirations, and demands.
- Simultaneous elections risk conflating these distinct forums, overshadowing State-specific concerns with national-level narratives.
- The federal structure also acts as a check on the centralisation of power, bolstered by institutions like the Rajya Sabha.
- Simultaneous elections, by consolidating electoral processes, could weaken this decentralised balance, paving the way for greater centralisation and concentration of authority.
- Democratic Participation: Elections are the primary mechanism for public participation in India’s governance system, as the Constitution does not guarantee other forms of direct public involvement, such as the right to recall or mandatory public consultations in law-making.
- Frequent elections provide opportunities for extended public engagement and debate.
- By reducing the frequency of elections, simultaneous elections could curtail these avenues for democratic participation, leaving citizens with fewer opportunities to hold their representatives accountable.
