With the Union Cabinet approving the much-touted “One Nation, One Election” idea, the ball has been set rolling on one of the key elements of electoral reforms promised by the BJP in its manifesto. However, there are several challenges ahead. Foremost among them is the requirement for a string of constitutional amendments needed to make it a reality.
Since the NDA 3.0 does not have the required majority in the Parliament, it would be an uphill task for the government to get the constitutional amendment bills passed.
No attempt has been made so far to build political consensus on the matter despite its far-reaching implications. The opposition parties, particularly the Congress, are strongly opposed to the idea of simultaneous polls, arguing that it would undermine the spirit of federalism and put the BJP in an unduly advantageous position.
On the face of it, the idea of simultaneous polls sounds appealing in a country where frequent elections mean a heavy burden on the exchequer and disruption of governance and development activities. However, implementation of this idea is beset with many constitutional and political hurdles. Articles 83(2) and 172(1) of the Constitution fix a term of five years for Lok Sabha and Assemblies respectively.
An amendment to these provisions would require a two-thirds majority in both Houses of Parliament. All this would call for a prolonged consultation exercise and the building of consensus. Also, it must be borne in mind that the Parliamentary and Assembly elections have different dynamics and issues at stake
A death knell for regional parties?
Critics see simultaneous polls as a ploy to blur the lines and prompt the electorate to vote for the ruling party at the Centre in both cases. For many regional parties, this could spell disaster, as they risk being overshadowed by the national dynamics favouring the BJP. There are fears that synchronised polls could undermine federalism by reducing the importance of state-specific issues and diminishing the role of regional parties.
In a country as diverse as India, where regional identities and local issues often play a crucial role in elections, a unified national election could lead to the centralisation of political power, leaving regional voices marginalised.
Kovind Committee
The cabinet gave its nod to the recommendations of an eight-member high-level committee, headed by former President Ram Nath Kovind, for holding simultaneous polls for Lok Sabha elections and assemblies. According to the plan, the idea would be implemented in two phases: First, the Lok Sabha and assembly elections will be aligned and in the second phase, which will be held within 100 days of the first, local body elections will be covered.
The panel has recommended several amendments to the Constitution, including the introduction of Article 324A for enabling simultaneous elections in panchayats and municipalities within 100 days of the general elections and the state assemblies, and an amendment in Article 325 for enabling single electoral roll and single elector’s photo identity card, which will be prepared by the Election Commission, in consultation with the States.
It has proposed amendments to Article 83, which governs the term of the Lok Sabha, and Article 172, which covers the tenure of state assemblies. Besides, Article 356, which prescribes the imposition of President’s rule in a state when there is a breakdown of constitutional machinery, may also need an amendment.
However, the Kovind committee lacked inclusiveness as there was no representation to diverse shades of opinions. The problem is that the very terms of reference of the committee assumed that the simultaneous elections to all state assemblies and Lok Sabha is in the national interest. This assumption foreclosed all other arguments, however valid and sound they may be. Given the way the committee was constituted and the terms of reference framed, it came as no surprise that 81% of the 20,000-plus responses received by the committee were in favour of the ‘One Nation, One Election’ idea.
Unfortunately, there was no debate at the national level. The opposition Congress should also take the blame because it had refused to be part of the committee, despite the issue on hand having far-reaching consequences. This rendered the functioning of the committee ineffective. On the opposition side too, there has been a lack of common approach on the matter. No attempt has been made by the members of the I.N.D.I.A block to jointly articulate the concerns over simultaneous elections. A fundamental change in the democratic structure and process must not be brought about without adequate engagement with the Opposition’s concerns.
Build consensus
There is a need for a consensus approach involving all the stakeholders instead of the ruling dispensation bulldozing its way. One way to build the necessary consensus is by referring the Amendment Bills to a parliamentary committee, such as a standing committee or a joint parliamentary committee that includes opposition members. The Centre will also need to involve the states. For local bodies to be part of the simultaneous elections plan, at least half of the states must ratify the required Constitutional amendment.
The advocates of simultaneous polls argue that they would help reduce the financial burden of conducting elections and minimise the constant political disruptions caused by the staggered election cycle.
The BJP’s renewed push for the idea is understandable. It stands to benefit the most if voters exercise their franchise once in five years for both the Lok Sabha and Assemblies instead of participating in the frequent polls.
Follow us
