Costly synchronisation
The Modi 3.0 government, in all likelihood, will implement the much-debated one nation, one election scheme in its term. The reform, the government claims, will synchronise elections for the Lok Sabha, state legislative assemblies, and local bodies. It is expected to streamline governance, reduce electoral expenditure, and prevent frequent disruptions caused by recurring elections. However, it must not be forgotten that indirect checks and balances, imposed through India’s evolved election machinery, have been put on purpose for the health of the Indian democracy. It is unfortunate that recurring elections are being viewed as ‘disruptions’. In a nation that has always viewed election as a festival of democracy, a perception of the exercise being an economic burden has been manufactured. Lest one sees this view as a nostalgic outpouring in an evolving political order, it must be clarified that frequent elections, with all the friction they bring, have a lot of tangible benefits to offer. It does not mean that India’s electoral process is devoid of flaws. The drain of resources by political parties during election campaigns, diversion from real issues to political rhetoric, and similar other flaws are not inherent in the election cycle; these are, in fact, fallacies of the operating procedures of different entities, which can be treated through slight modifications aimed at refining India’s electoral culture. While treating the smaller malice in one sweep, the ONOE can end up creating greater ills and inconsistencies. Concerns regarding violation of federal principles, regional representation, and constitutional challenges have already been voiced by political experts.
The rationale for ONOE rests on three key arguments: cost, governance efficiency, and political stability. Taking these three factors one by one, one would find very little merit. On the cost front, it is purely incoherent to see the conduct of elections through a crudely economic lens. At a time when governments and political parties spend superfluously on advertisements and image-building, to see the conduct of elections through an economic lens is a disgrace in itself. Moreover, even in the case of ONOE, recurring costs of procuring EVMs are no less significant. On the governance efficiency front, there is very little evidence to suggest that ONOE will yield any positive outcome. More importantly, the government may be overlooking other efficient methods of streamlining elections. When it comes to ensuring political stability, despite recommendations by the Ramnath Kovind Panel, the Election Commission of India, and the Law Commission, it appears uncertain what route will be taken to synchronise all the elections, and at what cost—economic and otherwise.
Notably, the concerns raised by opposition parties and several state governments remain unaddressed. State governments have argued, and not without reasons, that during simultaneous elections, local and regional issues will be eclipsed by national issues, leading to undermining of federal principles. Moreover, state parties may not match the resources of national parties, leading to a disruption of a level-playing field. There are certain questions that are still to be answered with greater conviction. How will the cycles of states with ongoing assemblies be adjusted without unduly disrupting governance? Will assemblies have their terms curtailed or extended? There is also a lack of clarity in the way forward in cases involving dissolution of Houses, President's Rule, or even a hung Assembly or Parliament.
The government may clear the arithmetic and it can even make its way through the requisite amendments conveniently, but the above mentioned ambiguities, if left unaddressed, will keep creating hurdles in the future. Any attempt to tinker with the election cycle should be made after detailed considerations. More importantly, elections are festivals of democracy, and should be treated as such.
