Disciplining Democracy

The idea of one nation, one election is back in public debate. The Prime Minister has been talking about it for a while now, but that would not go beyond a mention. This week however, things moved surprisingly fast. He chaired an all party meting on Wednesday to deliberate upon the idea. At the end of the meeting, it was decided that a committee will be formed to further examine it. Next day, president Ram Nath Kovind also expressed his support to the plan, saying that it would facilitate accelerated development.

Every year, on an average four to five states in India go to polls as and when their state assembly’s tenure ends. For instance, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, etc went to polls for their Vidhan Sabhas in November-December last year. Then we had Lok Sabha elections in April-May this year. Elections for Vidhan Sabha in Maharashtra and Haryana will be held in October this year, that of Delhi in February next year, Bihar in October next year, and so on. Because of this, the country constantly remains in election mode. One nation, one election means having elections for Lok Sabha and all the state Vidhan Sabhas simultaneously, so that there would be no major election in India for the next five years.

The supporters of simultaneous elections argue that in the current system, elections put too much pressure on the economy. Simultaneous elections will save a lot of money. Further, elections have become very ugly these days. Corruption is rampant during the time. Deliberate attempts are made by political parties to create conflicts between communities. It disrupts harmony in the society. Also, Election Commission [EC] enforces Model Code of Conduct [MCC] before elections in the region where they are scheduled. In that period, the government cannot undertake any development work. Lastly, the current system of holding elections puts pressure on security forces and election machinery. Large number of security personnel are deployed in election bound region. The government officials, teachers are also put on election duty. Consequently, they are not able to focus on their respective work.

To address these issues, came the idea of simultaneous elections. But it raises another set of questions which are perhaps more serous. Prime Minister and his Council of Ministers are responsible to parliament. Parliament means we the people. Since all of us cannot go and work there, we elect our representatives who work on behalf of us. These are Members of Parliament [MPs]. Prime Minister and his Ministers can stay in office as long as majority of MPs have confidence in them. They have to resign if majority of MPs at any time during the five year term express lack of confidence in them, and we may go to mid-term elections. Similarly, Chief Minister is responsible to Vidhan Sabha at the state level. This ensures that no government works in authoritative manner. They know that five year term is not guaranteed, and certain actions can land them in trouble. The idea of simultaneous elections goes against this very principle of parliamentary democracy. If implemented, this will ensure guaranteed five year term to the government. They can do anything they want. Nobody can remove them before the completion of five years because we don’t want election. The problems don’t end there.

Suppose in 2024, we hold simultaneous elections. After one year, state government of Maharashtra collapses because of Vidhan Sabha’s expression of lack of confidence in it. Who will govern Maharashtra for the next four years? President’s rule? Under normal circumstances, administering a state through President’s rule and not through popularly elected government not only subverts democracy, but denies the right to the people of that state to decide for themselves. That is not all.

State elections are fought on state specific issues. For instance, the issue of farmer suicides in Maharashtra, water scarcity in Karnataka and Tamil Nadu, sugarcane farmers not getting their dues in Uttar Pradesh, and so on. Northeastern states have their own issues. The respective state governments have to tell the people what they have done about these issues during elections. National issues will overshadow these issues and the state governments will go unquestioned if we synchronize elections.

Lastly, no doubt most of the regional political parties are family enterprises, but they have made Indian politics more inclusive. Synchronization of elections will further marginalize them, and national parties will dominate at national and state level.

The concerns raised by the supporters of simultaneous elections can be addressed in the current system. We often complain that we spend too much on defence. We could have spent some of it on education and healthcare. But we can’t help because of a hostile neighbour. Similarly, we are a democratic country. Election is an IMPORTANT aspect of democracy. Even if it is costly, we have to conduct it. There is no option. As far as corruption is concerned, election commission does seize lot of cash during elections, but is it seriously checking whether a candidate has spent more than the limit imposed by it? Why doesn’t it disqualify candidates who do not follow its expenditure limit? Why doesn’t EC make it mandatory for all political parties to disclose the amount of donations they got, and the names of donors? Why political parties are not under RTI? Why doesn’t EC punish the politicians found campaigning on communal lines? We can have a system where a candidate will be declared winner only if he/she gets 50% or more of the total votes cast in his/her constituency. In such a system, a candidate will not limit himself/herself to one or two communities and will approach all sections of the society. This way, we can get rid of communal tensions during elections.

The state leaders of national political parties will take care of election campaign of their state elections. National leaders can continue policy making and other development work. What is the need to get disproportionately involved in a state election which is fought on state specific issues? Scope of MCC can be discussed and changes can be made, if necessary, to ensure that it doesn’t obstruct development work. In case of a state election, MCC only comes in force where the election is scheduled, and not in the entire country. Can all this happen without changing current system of holding elections?

We can think of giving EC its own staff. Or EC can appoint common people as poling agents with little training. As far as security forces are concerned, they work to ensure internal and external security of the nation. Holding regular, free and fair elections is important for India’s internal security. Democracy is the common thread which has kept India together. Otherwise why would such a diverse population remain under one central rule for over 70 years?

All that said, things tend to be somewhat chaotic in democracy. We cannot try to fix them beyond a limit. Doing so amounts to disciplining democracy. The idea of simultaneous elections is aimed at that.