There is lot of adulation around ‘one’. One nation, one flag, one religion, one culture, one language seem to be in vogue. The concept of ‘one’ is antithesis of the very idea of India. Our diversity is our USP. The proponents of a strong central government never believed in a heterogeneity of the country.
The idea of one nation-one poll came from the Law Commission first in 1983 and then in 1999. Again via a white paper the Law Commission flagged it in 2018. Our PM had proposed it in 2016. His niti Ayog supported the idea in 2017 and the present government even convened an all party meet which came to be boycotted by major opposition parties. There is no consensus on the matter. At least leading scholars have rejected the idea as promoting a unitary character for our polity.
It is worth noting that in 2000 president KR Narayanan appointed a national commission to review the working of the constitution. It was also an NDA government which sought to review the constitution on completion of half a century of its operation. In 1999 the law commission in its 170th report recommended simultaneous elections to the Lok Sabha and State assemblies but the constitution review committee headed by Justice MN Venkatachaliah and consisting of retired SC Judges, reputed constitutional scholars and political activists thought fit not to even consider the proposal of the law commission.
The issue of simultaneous elections is again on the table at the time when the Prime Minister has no challenge to his standing. The last parliamentary elections got converted into some sought of a presidential campaign and one poll for parliament and States would certainly be a step towards centralising the polity which is dangerous for democracy and federalism.
It is not that the country did not have simultaneous elections. From 1950-67 we had such elections. The State elections got separated from the national elections due to State governments collapsing and indiscriminate use of President’s rule in the States. In 1967 Congress lost power in 8 States and a few months thereafter, it lost UP government after Charan Singh left with a large number of MLAs to head a SVD government. If State assemblies are unstable and the governments collapse with no alternative government possible, the only way to have simultaneous poll is by keeping the States under President’s Rule.
It is not that, only the State governments collapse. The central governments have also been victims for disruptive politics. Remember Atal Behari Vajpayee lost a no confidence motion when its ally AIADMK withdrew support. The central governments headed by Morarji Desai, Charan Singh, Chandra Shekhar VP Singh, HD Devegowda and IK Gujral collapsed without completing their terms. Mrs Gandhi dissolved the Lok Sabha in 1970 to start her ‘Garbi Hatao’ campaign.
In European countries the no-confidence motion is coupled with a consensus over the successor. Can we import such a system in our country and give fixed term for central and State governments? What if alternatives are not possible? Charan Singh, Chandrashekar and IK Gujral would have continued to enjoy offices under such a system.
Whether at the centre or in the States, the option not to permit no-confidence motion unless they have the numbers to form next the government could keep in office unpopular, unresponsive, autocratic and minority governments. This does not augur well for a democracy.
My reading on the topic brings to believe that Guru Golwalkar the leading light of RSS was also opposed to the federal structure. In 1933 Adolf Hitler did away with the State assemblies altogether!
The view that model code of conduct (during elections) retards development is actually governance failure. Model Code only prohibits new schemes, not work already announced and continuing. Only impediment could be on deployment of security personnel for long period. It is the failure of ECI to conduct elections within a brief period. It is said fixed term and one poll the governments would get a stability for five years
Continuous elections at all times has its own advantages and in fact a boon for citizens. It is actually elections around the year that keeps the ruling government on its toes, ever willing to listen to the public and act in tune with their aspirations. Continuous elections is an important check on the Central government like local issues are important checks on State government. Before the last general elections, the central government went for an interim budget with sops for all classes. Prices were kept in check to avoid on electoral backlash. The Sonsoddo matter is taken up on war footing due to the ensuing municipal elections.
Simultaneous elections shall certainly provide additional advantage to the national parties then the regional parties. It shall only add to the confusion in the voters’ decision-making process, notwithstanding the choice made by the electorate in Orissa. State level issues, like health, public works, education, law and order shall get drowned by bigger issues like economic crises and national security.
The regional players would not be in a position to withstand the financial muscle of national parties. Irrespective of the benefits of simultaneous elections, at a time when the opposition is reduced to mince-meat and the idea of one leader, one party getting promoted, the One nation-One poll idea is frightening for federal polity and country’s diversity
(The writer is practising advocate, senior faculty in law and political analyst)
