Once upon a time, a wise philosopher named Socrates went to watch a movie. Yes, Socrates – in the theatre, munching on popcorn! The movie, ironically, was ‘Inception’. As the layered dreams played out on screen, Socrates nudged his fellow philosopher buddy, Plato, and said, “This reminds me of opposition. If the government proposes a dream, the opposition is convinced there’s another dream inside it trying to topple democracy!”
Fast forward to modern times. The Union government has decided to set up a high-level committee on simultaneous elections. Headed by former President, Ram Nath Kovind, the other members of the committee are Home Minister Amit Shah, Congress leader Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury, Ghulam Nabi Azad, N K Singh, Subhash Kashyap, Harish Salve & Sanjay Kothari.
But, like every movie, there’s always that one critic. An Opposition leader exclaimed, “This gimmick of forming a committee on ‘One Nation, One Election’ is a subterfuge for dismantling the federal structure of India.” He was clearly convinced that hidden inside this decision was another decision, and inside that, another decision aimed at sabotaging the Constitution. It’s kind of like when you think there’s a movie inside a movie, but there’s really just a movie. It seems some take the concept of “oppose by default” a little too seriously.
Similarly, another Opposition leader who was part of this committee has decided not to be a part anymore. First, he’s in, sparking hope for bipartisan discussion on the issue, and then he’s out, leaving us all in suspense. It’s like a political thriller with plot twists at every turn. But in all seriousness, it does raise questions about whether the Opposition is truly committed to discussions or merely engaging in a different kind of ‘running’—away from the table, that is.
Turning our attention to the concept of simultaneous elections, I refer to the concurrent elections for the Lok Sabha and state legislative assemblies. The idea is that the voters in a single parliamentary constituency should be voting to choose their MPs and MLAs on the same day. It doesn’t mean that elections should happen in all the constituencies on the same day. Further, it won’t be logistically possible to have simultaneous elections for the third tier of the government.
With that said, the notion of simultaneous isn’t new. In fact, this was the standard practice up until the 1960s. However, the practice diverged when the Central government began dismissing state governments. It’s worth noting that the Opposition leader discussed above won’t view Indira Gandhi’s decision to dismiss elected state governments on 50 occasions as a “subterfuge for dismantling the federal structure of India”.
There are several benefits of simultaneous elections. One significant benefit is the cost-saving aspect, as it can drastically reduce the expenses involved in frequent elections. Additionally, with the Indian polity frequently being in election mode, simultaneous elections can mitigate policy paralysis that often arises from the constant electoral cycles and implementation of the Model Code of Conduct. This streamlined approach would allow governments to focus more on governance and development rather than always being in campaign mode. Furthermore, it may also lead to a reduction in the use of administrative and security resources which are currently stretched due to continuous electoral cycles. Lastly, the concept seeks to ensure stability in governance, by reducing the disruptive effects of frequent elections, thereby fostering a more conducive environment for development and long-term planning.
But why is the idea being opposed?
There are three main arguments against simultaneous elections:
- Critics question the logistical viability of conducting elections for both state and national bodies at the same time. They argue that implementing this process smoothly seems unrealistic and unachievable.
- There is concern that the practice could lead to voters focusing predominantly on national issues, even when casting their votes for state representatives. This might result in a homogenization of voter choices, where people end up supporting the same political party for both state and national elections.
- Another significant critique revolves around the constitutional alterations that would be needed to put simultaneous elections into practice. Sceptics believe that changing the terms of legislative bodies could risk disrupting the foundational federal structure of the country and limit the political independence of individual states.
Examining each of these criticisms in a new order reveals a more nuanced picture. On the issue of whether simultaneous elections would be operationally feasible, it is very much possible to do so. A very comprehensive NITI Aayog Paper, titled ‘Analysis of Simultaneous Elections: The “What”, “Why” and “How”’ by Dr Bibek Debroy and Kishore Desai shows how to conduct these elections. Similarly, the Law Commission of India’s draft report on Simultaneous Elections is also a good starting point for anyone who wants to understand (a) the logistical issues with the current model of non-simultaneous elections and (b) how efficient simultaneous elections can be.
Regarding concerns about eroding federalism and state autonomy, it’s worth noting that the structural changes needed for simultaneous elections won’t necessarily disrupt the federal architecture of the country. Voters could still choose different parties for state and national levels, thus preserving the importance of regional issues. Although there would be a one-time adjustment to the term lengths of state assemblies, future dissolutions of either state assemblies or the Lok Sabha would be handled in a way that maintains parity.
The implementation of the President’s rule in a state would also be carefully managed and limited to specific conditions, which means the political autonomy of states wouldn’t be necessarily compromised. Again, the NITI Aayog paper explains how this can be done.
When it comes to the argument that simultaneous elections could skew voting behaviour toward national issues, this assumes a simplification of the complex factors that influence voting in India. Voters are influenced by a myriad of elements, such as the track record of the current government, the organisational strength of political parties in various constituencies, policy positions, and political alliances. No definitive empirical evidence proves that simultaneous elections would necessarily change voting patterns to favour parties with stronger national profiles.
There are documented instances, such as in Delhi and Odisha, where regional parties or different parties have prevailed in state elections despite national trends leaning towards specific national parties. In Odisha, where elections are held simultaneously, the BJP experienced a considerable disparity in vote share between the 2019 parliamentary (38.4 per cent) and assembly elections (32.5 per cent). This reflects the sophisticated discernment of Indian voters and their capacity to make well-informed decisions that align with diverse interests.
It’s essential to acknowledge the discerning nature of the Indian voter, who has consistently shown the ability to distinguish between state and national issues when casting their ballots. The belief that they would be swayed solely by national narratives in simultaneous elections undermines their intelligence and deep engagement with diverse local concerns. Faith in the wisdom and discernment of our voters is foundational to our democracy, and they have repeatedly demonstrated their capacity for nuanced judgment over the years. Let’s trust them to continue doing so.
The author is OSD, Research, Economic Advisory Council to the Prime Minister. He tweets @adityasinha004. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely that of the author. They do not necessarily reflect News18’s views.
