Is “One Nation One Poll” In India Desirable?

The BJP govt. is going to complete 4 years in power, in May 2018, & there is a wager on whether joint elections to the National Parliament & State Assembly elections is round the corner, especially, when Prime Minister, Modi, has strongly argued for the cause in various forums & the Election Commission has announced its logistical readiness for conducting simultaneous elections by, Sept 2018, contingent though on the govt. making legal amendments to the law. However, critics scoff at such a move because of its “impracticality” – since it needs a consensus to be evolved followed by a Constitutional amendments to article 83, 85, 172 & 174 supported by a 2/3^rd majority - as much as its “undesirability” - since such action helps, disproportionately, a party with a national footprint vis a vis a regional party & hence detrimental to Federalism. Will the argument of cost reduction, governance dislocation & loss of time of party workers convince the Supreme Court that amendments so passed do not violate the “basic structure” of the constitution – a mandatory requirement post the Kesavananda Bharti Judgment of 1973?

In Support of the Move

Narendra Modi has faced criticism for being constantly on an “election mode”; perhaps, to counter the charge & emerge as a statesman, he made a persuasive argument that India had simultaneous elections till 1967 & citizenry have displayed maturity in electing different parties, if need be, at the Centre & the States then & can be expected to display the same maturity in future too.  He also argued for a single electoral roll from Panchayat to Parliament to reduce the work load on the teachers involved, ceaselessly, on electoral roll up gradation.  He proposed local body elections - both Urban & Rural - within a month of the simultaneous elections to the Centre & States to wind up the election season & settle into the serious job of governance.

The costs of Parliament elections in 2009 was 1000 -1100 crores (1483 crores as per EC), in 2009, & has increased to 4000 crores (3426 crores as per EC), in 2014, he averred & sought out joint elections as a solution to reduce costs & hence black money; reduce federal friction due to “war of words”- vitriol & rhetoric - between the political executive doubling up as a party representative & their opposition; & to prevent announcement of populist promises that are economically unfeasible. Simultaneous elections, incidentally, is budgeted to cost Rs 4500 crores – leading to substantial savings.

He also referred to the redeployment of the security forces during elections effecting the strategic security objectives of the country & deployment of senior officials of a neutral state in the electoral state disrupting governance in their parent state. He also highlighted India having about 10 lakh polling booths & the govt. deploying about 11 personnel per booth – largely govt. employees & teachers - dislocating human resources from their original functions & hence delivery.

Others have opined that governance comes to a standstill when the moral code of conduct comes into effect - from the time the poll bugle is sounded till the elections are completed. If elections are announced in UP, national governments are expected to refrain from launching schemes in the rest of the country too for ubiquitous media allows message transmission across porous regions; needless to add that some governments have taken advantage of this loophole to serve themselves with an electoral advantage & hence the need for joint elections to serve a level playing field. Former CEC SY Quraishi has suggested that if the Home Ministry could provide more paramilitary forces, the election season could be crashed to a month from the current 2 – 2.5 months cycle. Likewise, during the period the moral code of conduct is in vogue only launch of new schemes is disallowed & existing schemes can be pursued, nullifying the adulterated argument that governance comes to a standstill.

Simultaneous elections could help deepen democratic processes; migrant workers cannot make multiple visits back home to vote for the local bodies, state & national elections but if all of them are held together, they could do with oe visit  to participate in the festival of electoral democracy, perhaps, leading to a voting % increase.

The strongest argument in favour of the motion is that the law commission of 1999, in fact, suggested simultaneous elections & a parliamentary standing committee having studied the recommendation submitted its report, in 2015, to which the Election Commission too has added its viewpoint.

Against the Move

A staggered election – across the state & centre  - even if its costs about 10000 crores over a 5 year period (Rs 2000 crores per annum) is not as large as it is made out to be for a country with a national annual budget of about 25 lakh crores; the cost argument thus might not pass muster.

This move could propel the dominance of one party at the expense of diversity & inclusion. As per IDFC Institute Report 2016, in 16 simultaneous elections held between 1999 - 2014, the winner was from the same party in 77% of the cases; the metric has inched up from 68% in 1999 to 86% in 2014 which buttresses Prashant Bhushan’s view that the “absurd proposition” of simultaneous election is being pushed by the BJP since they believe that Modi’s perception as the strongest leader at the centre would be carried forward to the state elections too in the event of joint elections. The Parliamentary standing committee too in its report submitted, in 2015, has conceded that voting once every 5 years could deplete political accountability, marginalize regional parties & reduce voters ability to differentiate between local & national issues.

Nalini Singh telecast a program in the 1990s on how local strongmen subvert democracy & how country-made weapons are widely & easily available, a situation that has not changed much even today. It is prudent to therefore argue that if elections are spread out, then the concentrated deployment of security forces in the electoral areas, thus achieved, could help in the conduct of free & fair elections unlike a thinly spread out force in the case of simultaneous elections.

Are we barking the Wrong Tree?

India had 4215 members of the Vidhan Sabha & 543 members of the Lok Sabha, in 2014, for an electorate of 81 crores; thus an MLA represents a 2 lakh electorate & an MP 15 lakhs.  Generally, 30% of the eligible voters do not exercise their franchisee & a victor targets 50% of the rest of 1.4 lakhs i.e. 70,000 voters. As per The Hindu Business line article dated 6/4/2009, about 70% of the candidates expenditure is on liquor & cash & 10% each on vehicles, publicity & miscellaneous. The recent RK Nagar by poll in Tamil Nadu was countermanded since it was rumoured that about Rs 4000 was paid per voter as a bribe. Assuming a conservative expenditure of Rs 1000 per voter, a candidate has to expend about 7 crores per assembly constituency & assuming 3 serious candidates per constituency the spent is approximately 21 crores. Thus a total of about 1 lakh crores is spend by all candidates across the parliamentary & assembly seats in an election cycle; isn’t it surprising that instead of making an attempt to reduce this expenditure of 1 lakh crore – which, arguably, is black money – interested parties are barking the wrong tree by claiming that the EC would reduce its expenses to only 4500 crores in conducting simultaneous elections? Should the target not be to reduce the election expenditure of candidates & parties?

Today there is a cap on the candidate’s spending but none on the party spent; a party can & does spend multiple times the candidates spent. This loophole that gives substantial advantages to political parties at the expense of independent candidates needs to be plugged by

1(a)Spent for a Lok Sabha constituency - 70 lakhs (say) - should include both the candidate’s spent & the party spent

1(b)Parties & candidates should be mandated to put their expenses, booth wise, in the public domain to be audited not only by the EC but by a vigilant opposition & civil society with recourse to the courts & judgements within 1 year to create a self- fulfilling prophecy of auto correction.

(2)Donations to political parties should be put into the public domain even if it is 1 paise & not Rs 2000/- & above as is the current practice.

(4)Political Parties have not subjected themselves to the RTI act despite a CIC’s June 2013 ruling that defined political parties as “public authorities” under rule 2(h) of the Act. Parties could opt to remain opaque with regard to their internal deliberations but should subject themselves to RTI with regard to their income & expenditure.

Increase in Opacity

The BJP govt. vide Finance bill 2017 amended the Company  Act 2013 that barred companies from donating more than 7.5 % of the average profits of the company of the past 3 year & mandated disclosure of the beneficiary in their P&L Accounts. This is a regressive move since it rewards corporates with anonymity & limitless political funding that could encourage quid pro quo. Likewise, individuals or firms are now allowed to buy electoral bonds from the authorized banks vide cheque or electronic payments – which does help regulate undisclosed money – but giving it to political parties without revealing the beneficiary makes the reform legally opaque. Greater transparency is the need of the hour.

To circumvent an adverse Delhi High Court ruling of 28^th Mar 2014, on receipt of funding from foreign sources, by the BJP & the Congress, from Vedanta, in violation of the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act, 1976, the law was amended, retrospectively, in Finance Bill 2018. This encourages a feeling that political parties do not believe that the law of the land applies to them & collude to protect their interests.

Surely, if lawmakers are genuinely interested in electoral reforms, they should reduce opacity in political funding in a bid to dampen the influence of perverse money power before attempting the next reform of simultaneous elections.

Some unanswered questions

(1)If simultaneous elections are held & one of the 30 states or 5 union territories has a fractured verdict in the assembly & falls midway (say after 2 years), would

(a)Fresh elections be held & the new assembly so constituted remain in power only for the remaining part of the term as recommended by the EC?

(b)Would it remain under President’s rule for the entire 3 year period which gives untrammelled power to the centre? or

(c )The assembly is forced to cobble together an alternative by placing a “confidence” motion alongside a “no confidence motion” as suggested by the EC. Would this lead to the formation of “coercive alliances” bereft of ideological or program cohesion or encourage a whip driven tyranny as a consequence of the 10^th schedule?

(2)What happens if a member dies or is disqualified midterm due to the anti-defection law or vide corruption charges proved?

(3)Between 2014 - 2018 the BJP has won most of the assembly elections. In the case of simultaneous elections would the BJP dissolve all the state assemblies where they have recently won or seek to extend their tenures coterminous with the end of the next parliamentary term (2024 say) even as they curtain the tenures of the remaining states? A Parliamentary standing committee has recommended some assembly elections to be held along with the Parliamentary elections & the rest of the states in the mid-term of parliament.

(4) J&K has a 6 year term for the assembly unlike the rest of the Indian state assemblies & Parliament that have a 5 year term; even if simultaneous elections are agreed to, how do you conflate the J&K term issue that needs an amendment to be passed by the J&K state assembly/constituent assembly. Would the J&K issue boil over if their term is sought to be reduced to 5 years?

Conclusion

Former chief election commissioner SY Quraishi has addressed both the pros & the cons of the issue at hand & called the move “desirable but not feasible” since it is fraught with constitutional issues & administrative problems. In support of simultaneous elections he said that if we are in the election mode all the time we are we are in the corruption mode all the time. Since communalism, casteism, divisive & hate politics happens during the elections to be forgotten later, simultaneous elections could lead to the desirable consequence of 4.5 years of undisturbed peace. Against the move he opined that local issues are different from national issues & joint-elections could conflate the same. Likewise it is untrue he attests that people hate elections; in fact they love them since that is the only occasion politicians visit them & elections - if  not spread out - could possibly deny electorate the opportunity to see the face to the representative for the next 4.5 years. He cited an interesting slogan he overheard : “Jab jab election aata hai, tab tab gareeb ke pet me pulav aata hai”.

Indian democracy during the era of simultaneous elections till 1967 experienced the dominance of one party – the Congress - & replication of the same process could see the emergence of another – the BJP - & that perhaps explains the latter’s eagerness to pursue the measure. Today, the electorate votes at least thrice in a 5 year period for the Parliament, State & local body polls ensuring answerability & accountability; if simultaneous elections are held, will the political class hibernate only to emerge after 5 years?

Surely, having single electoral rolls from Panchayat to Parliament as suggested by the PM is a kosher argument & aadhar could be employed to make such logistics simpler; however, purging Indian democracy of money power should precede any attempts at holding simultaneous elections.