Democratic politics began its journey in Athens as a negative voting system wherein eligible voters, mostly landowners, were asked to “elect” citizens to be expelled from the Greek city-state, or punished. Competitive electoral politics took root several centuries later in Europe during the Enlightenment era. The first major country outside Europe to adopt the representative form of democracy was the USA.
India was a late entrant into this system having opted for the democratic form of government after independence. However, it has set several significant standards for the democratic world. In the last 77 years of independence, it has proved to be the largest, most progressive and successful democracy. It was the first country to introduce the EVM (ELECTRONIC VOTING MACHINE) in 2004 and the first to introduce the idea of None Of The Above (NOTA). India is undertaking another major electoral reform in the form of One Nation, One Election. The first four elections after independence, from 1952 to 1967, were held in the aforementioned format with the Lok sabha and state assemblies taking place simultaneously. The idea of one nation one election is not new to India. The entire country underwent elections at the same time contrary to the system followed at present. The first disruption in the practice of one nation one election occurred when Jawaharlal Nehru’s government dismissed the democratically elected government in Kerala headed by the communist party leader EMS Namboodiripad in 1959, without any substantial reason. The second major disruption happened in 1969 when a split in the Congress party left the central government led by Indira Gandhi in a minority. This led to multiple elections happening in the same year. Thus, the net result from “one nation, one election” until 1967 was the concept of “one year, many elections.” Hence, since then, the practice of one nation, one election has not been followed and we have a different system at present wherein the elections for the state and centre are held at different intervals of time.
At present, there is a high debate surrounding the idea of one nation, one election, keeping in mind the BJP’s long-awaited ‘one nation, one election’ manifesto. The government appointed a committee led by our former President Ramnath Kovind to submit a report on the implementation of One Nation, One Election. 47 political parties gave their opinion to the Kovind panel on simultaneous elections earlier this year in which 32 supported the idea and 15 opposed it. Even those parties that did not participate in the poll by the committee such as the Telugu Desam party, stated publically that it supported the move in principle. All 32 parties that supported the move before the panel were either BJP allies or friendly towards the party. Since then, the BJD has turned against the BJP. Of the 15 who opposed the move before the panel, five are parties outside the NDA umbrella which are in power in states, including the congress. The cabinet has approved the report and the same will be presented before parliament for necessary constitutional amendments.
However, every step comes with its criticisms and there’s no lie with this manifesto as well. The opposition criticised the cabinet’s decision stating that this was not a practical idea but rather “another cheap stunt” by the BJP to distract from more important issues nationwide. Some said that such a move would “destroy federalism and compromise democracy”.
It’s pertinent to note that simultaneous polls are not new but a practice that existed in our country in the first two decades after independence, when partisan politics disturbed the rhythm of electioneering. I believe we must revert to the idea of One Nation, One Election, for one important reason that Mr. Pramod Mahajan, a veteran BJP leader, and a minister in the Atal Bihari Vajpayee government, used to preach- ‘Elections are fought only in the last three months while governance takes precedence during the remainder of the five-year term’.
Today, with elections taking place every six months in one or the other part of the country, governance becomes the biggest casualty. Pressure on human and financial resources too is enormous. The Kovind committee’s recommendations attempted to address these challenges. There are also certain issues on which parliament needs to hold a healthy debate. One reason is that the five-year cycle is disturbed due to the lapsing of governments into a minority as a result of defections. Although the same was addressed through an earlier reform making it difficult for elected members to change parties, defection is yet present. That along with extra pressure on parties to find an alternative before destabilising a government. In any case, returning to simultaneous polls is bound to guide in an era of better governance with better accountability. This will also bring more political stability. The repeated enforcement of the election code of conduct affects development work. With simultaneous elections, governments can function without interruptions for the entire term of five years. This will help maintain the continuity of development plans.
However, the question remains- is it that simple for One Nation, One Election to come into action? The answer is no. There are many challenges the government has to face to implement the same. The first is pertaining to the federal structure. India is a federal republic where states have the right to decide their own election timelines. If elections are held simultaneously, the autonomy of states could be reduced. The second major challenge is logistics. The election commission is tasked with conducting elections across the country at the same time. India has approximately 910 million voters. Managing the voting process for such a huge number of people and ensuring the smooth functioning of administrative and security arrangements is not easy. The third challenge remains the importance of local issues. With Lok sabha and assembly elections happening together, national issues may overshadow local ones, reducing the importance of local issues. Lastly, the practice of One Nation, One Election can lead to the dominance of one party. Dominant parties at the national level stand to gain an overall advantage in simultaneously held general and state may have to contend with unpopular governments when they lose the trust of the people
With so many issues present, it is important to set up an implementation committee to explore how the Kovind committee’s recommendation can be brought to fruition. The government will first have to start by building political consensus, as the transition requires constitutional amendments- first to align the Lok sabha and state assembly elections, and then to synchronize municipal elections and prepare a common electoral roll, which needs ratification by half the total states. For now, the cabinet’s in-principle approval and acceptance of the report will not have any immediate implications on the upcoming assembly elections in Maharashtra, Jharkhand, and even Delhi. According to Law Ministry sources, the implementation of the report will require at least two constitutional amendments, first to bring Lok sabha and state assembly election together, and a consequential amendment for union territories and the national capital territory of Delhi would follow. Currently, the election commission conducts the lok sabha and assembly elections and prepares the electoral rolls for these, while the state election commissions do the same for municipal elections. After the nationwide consultations are completed, implementation will follow, and the government will have to build a consensus over the next few months. Once the consultation process is over, the government will draft a bill, place it before the cabinet, and subsequently take it to parliament. The Kovind committee had recommended 18 amendments, including 15 constitutional amendments, to synchronize the terms of Lok sabha and state assemblies, simultaneously hold municipal elections, and prepare a common electoral roll. In case of a hung assembly or no-confidence motion, it recommended holding assembly elections for the remainder of the term of the Lok Sabha to maintain uniformity. In case of a hung Lok sabha or no-confidence motion, it suggested fresh elections for the unexpired term.
With the uprising of demand for one nation and one election, it needs to be made clear that we need elections because we need democracy. Elections aid democracy by providing a robust mechanism for choice and representation. However, there is a whole lot more to democracy than elections, such as spaces and opportunities for deliberation, being accountable to voters, and having the confidence of the citizenry during the elections. Making elections the be-all and end-all of democracy turns the people’s mandate into a five-year season’s pass where there are conceivably no to low incentives for the government to engage in meaningful debate and discussion or to be responsive to the voters’ requirements and aspirations. There is also the possibility of citizens being burdened with an unpopular government, with little recourse. While there are some downsides to implementing One Nation, One Election, this practice will work best for the entire country and the advantages of the same overpower the disadvantages. With One Nation, One Election, the power to elect the representatives still remains with the people. At the end of the day, democracy as a form of government is based on ‘by the people, for the people and of the people’. One Nation, One Election does not affect the power held by people in a democracy. Thus, it is not a threat and neither will the implementation of the same harm the democracy of India, but rather, with all its advantages, benefit and enhance the democracy in our country.