Blog Details

Background 

India did start out with simultaneous elections.  In 1952 and 1957, the Lok Sabha and state legislatures both went to the elections at the same time. The cycle was first interrupted in Kerala in July 1959, when Jawaharlal Nehru's administration utilised Article 356 of the Constitution to dismiss the Communist E M S Namboodiripad's government. Following the polls in April 1957, EMS was elected Chief Minister, and Kerala voted for a new five-year Assembly in February 1960.

The notion has been around since at least 1983, when it was initially proposed by the Election Commission. In 1999, it was also mentioned in the Law Commission's Report. The latest drive was part of the BJP's programme ahead of the 2014 Lok Sabha elections. In January 2017, the Niti Aayog developed a working paper on the issue after Mr. Modi proposed the notion again in 2016. The Law Commission stated in a working paper released in April 2018 that at least "five Constitutional suggestions" would be necessary to get this off the ground. The final decision on having concurrent elections has yet to be made.

The concept needs to be debated mainly around five issues: 

• Financial costs of conducting elections; 

• Cost of repeated administrative freezes; 

• Visible and invisible costs of repeatedly deploying security forces; 

• Campaign and finance costs of political parties; 

• and the question of regional/smaller parties having a level playing field.

Impracticalities Ahead 一

• Impact On Governance Due To MCC- 

The Model Code of Conduct (MCC) is a collection of guidelines that lays out various dos and don'ts that major parties, candidates, and ruling parties must follow during the election process. The Model Code is in effect from the moment the Election Commission announces the election timetable and remains in effect until the election process is concluded. The implementation of MCC puts the Union and State Governments' entire development agenda and initiatives in the poll-bound State on halt. It even has an impact on regular governance. MCC is imposed for lengthy periods of time as a result of many elections. This frequently results in policy gridlock and a lack of governance.

• Frequent Elections Lead To Massive Expenditures By Government & Other Stakeholders 

Yet another argument is that humongous number of resources are expended on elections at both the national and local levels, which can be governed by introducing simultaneous elections, and the money saved can be wisely served on other government schemes such as increasing literacy, improving scientific research and technology, and combating terrorism, all of which will help India participate on a global scale. Candidates and political parties spend much more than the permitted expenditure limitations in order to win elections. As a result, one of the main causes of corruption and black money in the country is the desire to spend more than the permitted limits in order to win elections.

• Frequent Elections Disrupt Normal Public Life 

Elections are disruptive to everyday life and have an influence on the delivery of basic services. The holding of political gatherings causes traffic congestion and noise pollution. If simultaneous elections are undertaken, the duration of interruption will be confined to a specific time period. 

• Frequent Elections Adversely Impact The Focus Of Governance And Policy Making 

The cycle of continual elections not only has an impact on growth and good governance, but it also forces the political elite to think in terms of immediate electoral victories rather than long-term programmes and policies for the nation's and people's overall improvement. The pressing need to win the upcoming election makes short-term political imperatives a top priority. As a result, prudent long-term economic strategy is frequently overlooked. 

• Engagement Of Security Forces For Significantly Prolonged Periods 

To guarantee smooth, peaceful, and unbiased elections, the Election Commission of India enlists the assistance of a large number of polling officials as well as the military forces. Such a situation is plainly unjustified, since it diverts a component of an armed police force that could be effectively used for other internal security objectives — the primary goal for which these forces were created. 

Against Spirit of Federalism 

When many states join together to form a Union, but do not give up their independence, the state is said to be federal. National integrity and unity coexist with state rights under such a governing arrangement. The Supreme Court, on the other hand, has declared India to be a quasi-federal state.

Simultaneous elections would run contrary to our Constitution's federal nature, because state governments in certain states would have to be dissolved at the whims and wants of the centre. Also, because the parties will be campaigning for both the Lok Sabha and Vidhan Sabha elections at the same time, national problems may come to dominate over local issues. The enormous media attention and money power will exacerbate the situation. As a result, such an election will move the attention away from urgent difficulties and toward long-term ones, contradicting the fundamental point of federalism, which is to handle both national and local issues equally in a nation.

Against The Spirit Of Democracy

A study by CSDS of 31 assembly elections that were held along with Lok Sabha elections from 1989 to 2014 shows that in 24 instances/elections the major political parties polled almost a similar proportion of votes both for the assembly and the Lok Sabha, while only in 7 instances was the choice of voters somewhat different.

Voters do not know the difference between state and central issues. That there is a bifurcation of issues that only the state can handle and ones that the Centre can handle, subject to exceptions. Moreover all the nuisances that will be created due to a more complex voting structure each time a simultaneous election will be held considering the literacy rate we have in Bharath Nadu which is less than world average. There is great scope of formation of a “government by mistake”.

Considering the high risk of the same parties at both centre and state level the entire structure of federalism will fall apart. The state gets subdued and has to follow the “boss relation” of the centre being from the same party. The states then lose their voice in the matters of Concurrent Lists, procedure of Amendment by ratification, in the election of President ,in the distribution of powers between centre and state, all of which form the core of the federal structure of the constitution. This results in a complete form of authoritative government in the country and having a mere superficial democracy.

By the current amendment, if we take the matter on a balance scale and analyse it we will come to see that the Parliament has given more importance to the “convenience of election commission” than the “vote of people”, in any case we cannot reject the voice of the people and its mandate which the electorate gives to the political parties for a fixed tenure. Basically, you are diminishing/increasing the worth of a specific state’s citizen’s vote. That could even lead to litigation under Article 14. This amendment is forcing the states to comply with the Centre’s schedule. 

Political parties supporting the move argue that simultaneous elections would save costs, but one thing they do not mention is which cost? The statistics show that holding simultaneous elections will put on an expenditure of Rs 4500 crore on the Election Commission. But what about the major cost which is in the form of election propaganda spent by the political parties which is a major player here and shoots way above this value. Economic protection, which is used for holding simultaneous elections, is just a tool for getting public support here. Hence, truncating the tenure of State Legislative Assemblies is in itself against the principle of Democracy and so violates the basic structure of the Constitution.

It is a veiled attempt to introduce a presidential system through the backdoor. The national narrative may end up submerging the state narrative. The amendment to propose this policy would be very complicated and difficult as the tenure of some states has to be increased and for some states it has to be decreased. Coalitions would become an imposition in the case of “hung assembly” as the next election will be held after a five year term.

Sources 

• https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/one-nation-one-election-poll-narendra-modi-bjp-5908164/ 

• https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/why-simultaneous-polls-is-an-idea-whose-time-has-come-7344586/

• http://documents.gov.in/central/11949.pdf 

• https://scroll.in/article/816366/why-holding-simultaneous-union-and-state-elections-will-be-a-blow-to-democracy-and-federalism 

• https://www.importantindia.com/2044/federalism-in-indian-constitution/ 

• Source Report of the Parliamentary Standing committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice - 79th report (Dec 2015) on the topic of simultaneous elections 

• Strategic Plan Book of ECI 

• Centre for Study of Developing Societies
  https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/state-assembly-elections-nudging-the-voter-in-one-direction/article8438114.ece