One Nation, One Election

Mr Modi and his government set a cat among the INDIA pigeons on the day they had their recent conclave in Mumbai by calling for a special session of the parliament. Their discomfort increased manifold when it was heard on the grapevine that it was to discuss the ‘One nation, One election’ issue. It sent panic waves in the INDIA. No wonder their conclave concluded without resolving any major issues except to reiterate that they will defeat the NDA in 2024. Major issues related to seat sharing, a cohesive identity, a common national vision and leadership roles continue to remain as nebulous as before.

The surprising fact is that no one knows till date if the special session of the parliament will actually discuss the ‘One nation, One election’ issue. The government has already announced a high-power panel to study the issue and revert with its report. The panel has been tasked to study the feasibility and mechanism to find out how the nation can move towards this reform which was prevalent in the country till 1967. The panel will seek inputs from experts and leaders of political parties in this endeavour. In light of this, it appears unlikely that the parliament will debate this subject during the special session.

The opposition went ballistic in condemning the move. Base political rhetoric ensued since none of the INDIA leaders looked at the issue in a dispassionate manner. They lived up to their reputation of being obstructive by compulsion. The Congress party President roared that “For 2024 the nation needs ‘One Nation, One Solution’ to get rid of BJP’s misrule”. While the ‘One Nation’ (INDIA) is very much there, that ‘One Solution’ seems to be nowhere in sight for the Congress and its allies. One can be sure that INDIA will give its right hand to lay hands on that magical ‘One Solution’.

One of the common charges against the ‘One nation, One election’ idea is that national parties and their leaders will overshadow regional parties and their leaders. Till 1967, the nation was holding state and national elections simultaneously. In the first two decades after independence, most national leaders were from among those who were part of the struggle for independence and mainly from the Congress party. However, the same period also saw the emergence of many regional leaders of repute by the middle of the decade of seventies. l M Karunanidhi, M G Ramachandran, Jyoti Basu, H N Bahuguna and N T Rama Rao are prime examples of such leaders who exercised strong influence at the national level too. Some like Mamta Banerjee, P V Narasimhan Rao, Lalu Prasad Yadav, Deve Gowda and Rama Krishna Hegde later graduated to the national level. Parties like the Telugu Desam, DMK, AIDMK, SP and BSP grew in stature and challenged established national parties like the Congress and Jan Sangh (later BJP). If a strong national leader can overshadow a regional leader, the reverse is also equally true. So, this fear that ‘One nation, One election’ will sound the death knell of regional parties and their leaders appears to be a figment of imagination.

Over the years, the Indian voter has shown that he has the acumen and the wisdom to differentiate between the criteria that he applies for the national and state elections. It was so till 1967 when the ‘One nation, One election’ principle was followed. It remains true even today whenever states and national polls have been held simultaneously. In 2019, polls in states of Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Odisha and Sikkim were held simultaneously with national elections. BJP (NDA) won only in Arunachal Pradesh. In Andhra Pradesh, BJP could not win a single seat. So, any apprehensions that ‘One nation, One election’ will confuse or bulldoze voters into making wrong choices is all hogwash.

The advantages of holding elections simultaneously in states and the centre has many benefits for the nation. For the record, the reader may note that the cost of 2019 general elections to the exchequer was Rs 60,000 crores. As per Election commission, about 25% of the country takes part in different elections every year. These are mind boggling figures. Apart from huge savings in expenditure and organisational effort, there are many other factors that go in favour of holding simultaneous elections.

Election time, be it at the state or at the centre, is always a time for doles and freebies. Election rhetoric invariably banks on caste, reservation and religious affiliations as politicians exploit them unscrupulously. The subject of reservation policies, often raises its ugly head where those who are already included demand more while others seek inclusion. The nation is perpetually in election mode and therefore the opportunities to resort to protests, bandhs, agitations and unnecessary processions in support of such demands keep coming on a regular basis every year. All this not only vitiates the overall national environment, but also leads to avoidable disruptions in nation’s daily life.

Does ‘One nation, One election’ violate the principle of Federalism in the country? The answer to this is an emphatic ‘No’. One would have to be naïve to assume that federalism means elections at the convenience of every individual state that are totally divorced from national elections. Ensuring free and fair elections, through the aegis of the Election Commission, is part of the duties of a national government. As long as the states have their elected governments, the centre and state governments function within the guidelines and separation of powers as contained in the constitution, the federal structure will remain intact. Proponents of simultaneous elections being a threat to federalism are just barking up the wrong tree.

The opposition feels that the government is proposing this to seek political advantage for the next general elections. The insinuation being that if simultaneous elections are held for states and centre in 2024, the voter may be influenced by factors like the strong and nationalist image of the BJP, success of the many central welfare schemes, development of infrastructure and other perceived accomplishments of the government. This may push him into casting both his national and state votes in their favour. This is really a very far-fetched idea that not only lacks credibility but is also against the tall claims that have been made by leaders of INDIA. in the last three months. They have been vociferous, to the point of being irritable, that Mr Modi and the BJP are scared of the impact of their alliance. If that be so, then in all fairness political advantage of ‘One nation, One election’, if any, should accrue to INDIA. But then rationality and our political opposition are poles apart these days.

Can ‘One nation, One election’ be implemented by March-April 2024? More than half the elected state governments in the country would not have finished even half their term. Before any implementation, constitutional amendments would be needed, tenures of state governments will have to be curtailed, election commission will have to organise, coordinate and seek ways to augment its resources. Technology and connected hardware needs will have to be updated and expanded. All in all, it will be a massive task that will need to be implemented with clockwork precision without any errors. The country’s democratic credibility will be at stake. The nation may have to pay a heavy price if compromises are made or if systems fail. Logic dictates that it may be too ambitious to implement ‘One nation, One election’ in early 2024.

So, does it mean that the earliest it can be implemented is in 2029? In all fairness it does appear so. The million-dollar question is then why did the government moot this idea now? The answer is there for all to see. The alliance swallowed it hook line and sinker. The confusion was evident in their ranks as the agenda of their conclave in Mumbai seemed to have been put on the back burner and no major issues were resolved. The googly bowled by the government uprooted the middle stump of INDIA.

Any path breaking reform invariably comes with a lot of challenges in implementation and opposition from vested interests. That is expected. Well-meaning governments, while ignoring the latter, do not compromise on the former. They ensure that all the implications, be they short term or long term, are examined in an unbiased manner by ensuring participation of all concerned. In a democracy, the final decision on such national matters, whatever it may be, should emanate as a ‘near consensus’, if a ‘total consensus’ is not forthcoming. By rejecting it outright, INDIA is doing a disservice to the nation and the millions of voters who elected them. ‘One nation, One election’ certainly offers a lot of benefits to the nation while most of the apprehensions seem to be farfetched with no legs to stand on.

END OF ARTICLE