© The Indian Express Pvt Ltd
Tags:
Journalism of Courage
Out of the 47 political parties which gave their opinion to the Ram Nath Kovind-led panel on simultaneous elections, 32 supported the idea, whereas 15 opposed it. Of the 32 in support, all the parties, importantly, are either BJP allies, or friendly towards the party.
Of the 15 against, five are parties outside the NDA umbrella which are in power in states, including the Congress.
In all, while 26 parties which are part of the NDA are in support of one nation, one election, only 1 (Naga People’s Front) is opposed. All the 10 parties part of the INDIA bloc oppose the move. Of the parties not attached to any of the two fronts, 6 are in favour, and 4 against.
Only two of the 32 parties in support are national parties — the BJP and the Conrad Sangma-led National People’s Party (NPP), which is part of the BJP-led NDA and in power in Meghalaya.
The 15 parties that are opposed include all the remaining four parties recognised as national by the Election Commission — the Congress, Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) and CPI(M). Of these 15, the Congress, AAP, DMK, Trinamool Congress and the CPI(M) are in power in states; the others include the AIUDF, AIMIM, CPI, Naga People’s Front (NPF), Samajwadi Party (SP), the MDMK and Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi of Tamil Nadu, the CPI(M-L), and Social Democratic Party of India.
Apart from the BJP and NPP, the 32 parties which support simultaneous elections include BJP allies All Jharkhand Students’ Union (AJSU), Apna Dal (Soneylal), Asom Gana Parishad, Lok Janshakti Party (R), National Democratic Progressive Party (of Nagaland), Sikkim Krantikari Morcha (in power in Assam), Mizo National Front and United People’s Party Liberal of Assam; JD(U), which recently returned to the NDA fold; Shiv Sena (a faction of which is with the NDA); the ‘friendly to BJP’ Biju Janata Dal; and the Akali Dal and AIADMK, which were in alliance with the BJP till recently.
The remaining 15 of the 32 parties in support are small, unrecognised parties.
In terms of electoral representation, the 32 parties supporting simultaneous elections together account for 347 MPs in the Lok Sabha (including 290 from the BJP), 1,947 MLAs across states (including 1,482 of the BJP), and together got 48.3% of the vote share in the 2019 Lok Sabha polls.
Of these 32 parties, the NDA’s 26 account for 332 MPs, 1,768 MLAs and 44.7% of the vote share in the 2019 Lok Sabha polls.
The combined political strength of the 15 parties opposed to simultaneous polls stands at 117 MPs, 1,460 MLAs and 35.9% of the vote share in 2019.
Of this, the INDIA bloc members account for 104 MPs, 1,424 MLAs and 31.6% of the 2019 vote share.
The parties which did not respond to the panel were the Bharat Rashtra Samithi (which was in power till recently in Telangana), IUML, J&K National Conference, new BJP ally JD(S), Jharkhand Mukti Morcha, Kerala Congress (M), NCP (Sharadchandra Pawar), RJD, Revolutionary Socialist Party (RSP), YSRCP (the ruling party in Andhra Pradesh); TDP and RLD (both of which are BJP allies now); Shiromani Akali Dal (Mann); Rashtriya Loktantrik Party; and Sikkim Democratic Front.
The high-level panel on simultaneous elections sought opinion from 62 political parties in all, of which 47 sent their replies, 15 did not respond, while voluntary responses came from others. Eighteen parties also held in-person interaction with the panel.
The arguments put forward by the parties which opposed simultaneous elections:
The Congress said that implementing simultaneous elections would result in “substantial changes to the basic structure of the Constitution”, went against “the guarantees of federalism” and would “subvert parliamentary democracy”. The Congress also dismissed the argument regarding expenses saved on the cost of conducting repeated elections as “baseless”, saying that “people will be willing to consider this small amount as the cost of free and fair elections”.
According to the Congress, which did not meet the Kovind panel in person, there is “no place for the concept of simultaneous elections in a country that has adopted a parliamentary system of government”.
The AAP submitted its response to the panel on January 18 this year, followed by personal interaction on February 8. In its response, the AAP said that simultaneous elections would undermine democracy, the basic structure of the Constitution, and the federal polity of the country. The move would “institutionalise a Presidential form of government which cannot be dislodged by a vote of no-confidence,” the party said.
The TMC, which sent its response on January 11, questioned “the constitutional and structural implications of One Nation, One Election”, calling the same against the federal structure of the Constitution and against “basic electoral principles”. The TMC, which has held on to power in West Bengal against a spirited challenge from the BJP, also contended that forcing states into premature elections for the sake of contemporaneity would be “unconstitutional” and ultimately lead to “suppression of state issues”.
The DMK, in its letter dated January 16, and interaction in person on February 10, said that holding simultaneous elections required premature dissolution of state Assemblies, and that this was “unconstitutional”. It also called the very constitution of the high level committee by the Union government to discuss simultaneous polls as “illegal”, and questioned its jurisdiction.
The SP, which sent its response on January 11 and then met the panel on February 6, feared that simultaneous elections would result in national issues dominating regional issues. In case of such a scenario, the party said, state-level parties would not be able to compete with national parties in electoral strategy and expenditure.
In its report, the Kovind panel said that the SP had earlier supported simultaneous elections.
In its letter dated December 14 last year, the BSP suggested that the Kovind panel provide “a working framework” for simultaneous elections. While it did not explicitly oppose them, it highlighted concerns regarding the large territorial spread and population of the country, and said this could make holding simultaneous elections challenging.
The BSP also emphasised the need to “strengthen, optimise and ensure responsiveness in the existing electoral system” before embarking upon the massive change, and said the real solution to the current challenges lay in conducting free and fair elections.
The committee requested for interaction in person but, the report says, there was no response from the BSP.
The CPI(M), in its response on December 7 last year, objected “to the manner in which the concept of simultaneous elections was being sought to be imposed”. It called the concept “fundamentally anti-democratic” and said it “strikes at the root of the parliamentary democratic system as ordained in the Constitution”
The AIMIM, in its letter dated January 15 this year, and a meeting in person on February 14, questioned the constitutional permissibility of incorporating such a “fundamental change”. The party said that elections were not mere formalities, and voters should not be treated as “rubber stamps”. With electoral democracy the pillar on which “India’s constitutional edifice” stands, the AIMIM said, the consultation process and polls could not be subject to weak considerations such as administrative convenience or economic viability.
The CPI, which gave its response on January 10 this year and then met the panel in person on February 7, called the proposal “restrictive for democracy and state rights”, and said holding simultaneous elections was “an attempt at curtailing diversity of opinion by imposing uniformity and pushing the country towards one party rule”.
The Naga People’s Front, in a letter dated January 12, said simultaneous elections would “invariably defeat the spirit of federal structure”, as “a national agenda would overshadow regional and local issues”. It also objected to “the overhaul of the Constitution”, required for the proposal.
