Opinion Manoj Jha writes: One Nation, One Election undermines the voter — and Indian democracy

Well-meaning advocates – and more cynical supporters — of One Nation, One Election point to many of the so-called electoral “reform’s” benefits. Let us take them one by one.

The first is the pace of governance being retarded by the imposition of the Model Code of Conduct (MCC). The Election Commission of India (EC) should take proactive steps towards modernising the MCC guidelines in consultation with political parties and civil-society stakeholders. A responsive and strict EC can also very easily address this issue by being proactive in monitoring the Centre’s attempt to strategically target voters in states going to the polls. It should also plan and organise the polling in fewer days for all kinds of elections. Readers may recall that polling in several states in the last general elections stretched over an entire month.

Instead of pushing through so-called “big bang reforms”, as is the wont of this government, electoral reforms are better carried out in a piecemeal manner. A Commission struggling to conduct the existing system of elections efficiently should bite off only as much as it can easily digest. One of the first steps the EC can undertake is to cluster together more of the state assembly elections. In sum, the problem with holding “frequent” elections is not so much to do with their frequency but with the inefficiency with which they are planned and organised.

One Nation, One Election folks also feel that aligning all the election cycles will save public funds. While this may be partially true, we must remember that an inclusive, accessible, and participatory system of governance will have a cost. The somewhat idealistic question to ask in this regard is: Can a country of India’s political and economic stature not afford it? Must we cut corners and impoverish our famed and prized democratic culture? The pragmatic question to ask, however, is: Should we not aim to reduce overall election spending? The excessive amount of money spent during the elections is many times over the legal limits. What have independent institutions like the EC or the Supreme Court done about it in practical terms? Again, the issue is not about saving money but to regulate excessive spending.

While there are some upsides to conducting fewer and shorter elections, they can easily be achieved by making the system more efficient, instead of overhauling or replacing it.

The downsides of One Nation, One Election, however, are numerous and serious. One, dominant parties at the national level stand to gain an overall advantage in simultaneously held general and state assembly elections. Two, states may have to contend with unpopular governments when they lose the trust of the people. This would lead to a situation where democracy is made subservient to elections, rather than the other way round. We have elections to run our vibrant democracy. We do not have to tame our democratic cultures and desires to adjust to the election calendar.

At the central level, it would mean a government that is sure of smooth sailing. This could lead to an abuse of this security, by being unresponsive to the mood and needs of citizens. As of now, the calculus of elections – the need to reach out to various constituencies, to listen to them, to convince them of policies that may potentially affect them — keeps the current government somewhat in check. With most of the independent institutions undermined, this regime seems to be responsive only to voters at the polling booth. Elections are the only time the ordinary voter is relatively immune to its unrelenting censoring or hectoring. That almost all the opinion and exit polls got the mood of the nation wrong ahead of the general election is a testament to this reality. Despite all this, voters went out and spoke their minds.

At a time when the EC and Supreme Court have either looked the other way or dragged their feet on issues that continue to deeply affect Opposition parties — trumped-up cases against the leadership, misuse of agencies, defection, breaking of parties, the list, alas, is long — the idea of One Nation, One Election is deeply ominous and must be resisted. The nation must have elections, but she must have democracy too.

The writer is Rajya Sabha MP, Rashtriya Janata Dal