Stable and able?

It is not for the first time such a proposal has been mooted. Most recently, Vice President Bhairon Singh Shekhawat spoke of the wisdom of rescheduling the poll time-table. It had also come up before the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution. The concern about the possibilities of good governance while parties keep an eye on the constantly ticking poll clock, has grown increasingly articulate over the last decade or so. An increasingly audible argument attributes the failure of successive governments to deliver the goods to the fact of frequent elections. This is seen to hold especially true in matters of economic reform.

Here, governments at the Centre consistently shirk the hard decisions, pointing to one impending election or another, in one state or the other. This is compounded by the fact that we live in times when the tremors of state level contests immediately rock the political centre as well. Arguably, the demand for synchronising elections draws from this unease that many feel with crucial long-term issues being sensationalised into campaign issues. In a sense, it is a demand for less political contention and for more political calm. And, of course, it will also drastically reduce election costs.

But this demand for stability, some might call it fixity, must be balanced with another imperative. In parliamentary democracy, a government stays in office as long as it retains the trust of the majority of the elected representatives. Also, it is the prerogative of the leader of the government to dissolve the House and call for elections. A constitutional amendment would therefore be required for any synchronicity of state and central level polls. Parliament is in session and it is up to our parliamentarians now to debate if, and to what extent, the pursuit of stability can be allowed to modify the cardinal principle of parliamentary democracy.