One nation, one election is among the critical reforms in the BJP’s agenda. In fact, then President of India, Ram Nath Kovind, in his address to Parliament on January 29, 2018, mentioned this as one of the reforms proposed by the government. He said that citizens are concerned about frequent elections in one part of the country or another, which adversely impact the economy and development. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has spoken emphatically about the desirability of having one election across the country. Therefore, the idea is not a bolt from the blue.
I have overseen many elections, both as a returning officer and an observer for the Election Commission of India — from Kerala and Bihar to Jharkhand — to Parliament and state assemblies. I have also been a candidate for both Parliament and assembly elections. I am aware of the massive effort required in the conduct of elections and the repercussions of frequent elections on the administration and citizens at large.
I think there is an urgency in taking forward the idea of simultaneous elections for the following reasons:
First, it enables the government to concentrate on governance once the elections are over. Today, there is some election or the other in some part of the country, at least every three months. The entire attention of the country becomes focused on these elections. From the Prime Minister to Union ministers, from chief ministers to ministers to MPs, MLAs and panchayat members — everyone gets deeply involved with these elections, as nobody wants to lose. There is a virtual paralysis of administration at various levels in varying degrees. This reflects very badly on India’s growth prospects. Second, by and large, no decisions are taken during elections due to the code of conduct. Therefore, key policy decisions get delayed both at the Centre and in the states and local bodies. Three, even when no fresh policy decision is necessary, implementation of ongoing projects gets derailed during election periods as the political executive as well as government officials would be engaged with election duties, neglecting routine administration.
Four, one of the main reasons for political corruption is frequent elections. An enormous amount of money has to be raised at every election. Election expenses of political parties can be reduced drastically if elections are held simultaneously. There would be no duplication of fundraising. This would save the public and business community from a lot of pressure for election donations, multiple times. Five, expenses incurred by the EC can be reduced if elections are held simultaneously. Of course, the EC would have to invest a considerable amount of money initially to put in place the necessary infrastructure.
Six, a large number of police personnel and para-military forces are engaged to ensure that elections are conducted peacefully. This involves massive redeployment, involving huge costs. It also diverts key law enforcement personnel from their critical functions. Such deployment can be curtailed with simultaneous elections. Seven, if elections are held only at specific periods, horse trading by elected representatives could come to an end, by and large. Today, even with the anti-defection law in force, loopholes lead to horse-trading.
Eight, frequent elections lead to governments taking policy decisions to woo the electorate at every election. Even though this cannot be stopped fully, the frequency with which governments have to announce freebies will come down. Frequent elections have led to a situation where many state governments are broke. With a smaller number of elections, their finances could be in better shape. Nine, the same electoral rolls can be used for all the elections. This will save a tremendous amount of time and money spent in updating electoral rolls. It will also make it easier for the citizen as they would not have to worry about their names missing from electoral rolls once they are enlisted.
Ten, it is a global practice to have national and state elections together.
I do not understand why any political party should have any problem if elections are held simultaneously, right up to the local bodies. It will save everybody a lot of headaches and money.
I agree that there should be sufficient discussion on the issue before any legislation is passed. The government is always willing to have an elaborate discussion in Parliament before a bill is passed. The business advisory committee of each House of Parliament decides the time required to debate every bill. It has representatives of all political parties. The problem is that most often, the Opposition is not willing to have a discussion. They disrupt Parliament, with the result that no meaningful discussion can take place. When I was a minister for 18 months, I could not give a reply to a single starred question in the Rajya Sabha as the House was disrupted constantly. I could reply in the Lok Sabha only twice. I felt so distressed because I had made a great effort to study the issue. When questions are not answered in Parliament, it is a denial of the citizen’s right to know.
I hope that if the legislation comes up in Parliament soon, the Opposition will not oppose it just for the sake of it. It is sad that the leader of the Congress in the Lok Sabha has refused to be a member of the Committee set up to study the issue, even though the former President of India is chairing it.
The writer is a former Union minister and was from the 1979 batch of IAS. Views are personal
