Back to the Future? The Return of Simultaneous Elections in India

In the recently concluded USA elections, three results were declared simultaneously. These were the results of the much-discussed Presidential election along with the US Senate and the House of Representatives. The Americans, in one fell swoop, had performed their democratic (or in this case, republican) duties and carried on with their lives. Thus, the nation’s destiny was decided with one election, a concept that has re-emerged to prominence in public and political debate in Indian polity. The reason I say re-emerged is because this concept is not nescient to India’s elections.

Nearly four and a half years after her tryst with destiny, India had its long-awaited matrimony with democratic elections in 1952. The mammoth task of carrying out elections in a largely illiterate population was successful and a great legacy for democracy was established. Apart from its logistical and political achievements, one prominent feature was that along with electing 489 members of the Lok Sabha, the electorate had also polled 3,200 MLAs, thus establishing state assemblies. Thus, India saw one election cycle to vote for both Central and State governments.

This system of one election for the entire nation continued for four more election cycles, the last of which was in 1967. Kerala, for a while, was detached from the regular election schedule, however, the state rejoined it in 1967. After 1967, however, the country saw deep political instability as several state assemblies had to be dissolved early due to frequent defection and hung assemblies. Even the Lok Sabha elections were scheduled in 1971, a year earlier than the term ended, due to a split in the Congress party as a result of Indira Gandhi’s dissension with the Syndicate. Thus, the synchronous schedule was terminated. 

Recently, the issue was brought back into the limelight due to rising concerns about electoral costs, scheduling, and administrative inefficiency caused by the Model Code of Conduct and deployment of government officials for election duty. The BJP, along with several other bureaucrats, politicians, and lawyers have called for reforms in the election system. The party also included this issue in its 2019 manifesto.

The panel, after consultation and interviews with the ECI, economists, and political parties, unanimously held that India should hold simultaneous elections. The Law Commission of India in its 170th Report on Reforms of the Electoral Laws supported co-ordinated elections. Recently, the Union Cabinet cleared the proposal for the One Nation One Election recommendation by the panel. Some say that the bill for holding simultaneous polls is likely to be introduced in the upcoming winter session of Parliament, which is scheduled to begin on November 25.

Former President Ram Nath Kovind presented the report on synchronous elections to President Murmu. Source: PTI.

The policy has been framed in mind primarily to prioritize cost efficiency. The first general elections of 1951-52 required approximately Rs 11 crore, whereas the 2019 elections had an estimated expense of Rs 60,000 crore. According to the Kovind panel, implementing One Nation One Election, would save India up to Rs 500 crore of valuable taxpayer money. This spending, otherwise spent on logistics, security, and administrative procedures during elections could be spent on more productive sectors of our developing economy. Furthermore, by reducing the period spent under the election model code of conduct, the government could focus on developmental policies that the ECI would otherwise prohibit.

Another significant aim of the proposal is to streamline the voting process. This includes implementing a singular voter list which would increase voter registration and reduce ambiguity regarding polls. Since one can elect both state and central candidates simultaneously, voters may hold the election in higher regard which can increase turnout. Furthermore, the policy would concentrate the administrative tasks into one season in which the election commissions would dedicate time, labor, and money to one major event rather than having to divide themselves through several election cycles. This would also reduce voter list fatigue and government officials can focus on more important parts of the election cycle.

The key stakeholders in this policy are political parties and their employees. Elections can hinder the efficient management of governance when the elected officials are preoccupied with campaigning. Regular elections can help prioritize governing over campaigning and ministers can devote more time to policy formulation and development rather than to political campaigning. Furthermore, reducing the constant need to raise funds to support frequent election campaigns could alleviate political corruption. Reducing the frequency of election campaigns could simplify the identification of corruption by narrowing the period for investigating corruption and reducing the frequency of raising funds illegally.

Indian elections could see a massive change. Source: AFPPIX

On the other hand, there are several barriers to its implementation, the foremost being the legal lacunae. Implementing the policy would require amending the constitution and other legal frameworks through skillful lawmaking and careful handling of the constitution while ensuring that the spirit of the constitution is not tarnished. India now has more states and a significantly larger electorate. An important aspect is that India had stopped synchronous elections due to legislative instability, which is possible in contemporary and future times. A contingency must be devised to deal with such problems.

Several critics have said that the policy would lead to larger national parties winning both State and Lok Sabha elections due to an overlap of central and state issues. This could marginalize regional parties which often represent the interests of local social and economic groups. This could result in a standardization of political discussions at the national level and shift voters who are particularly concerned with state issues.

An interesting angle that Dr S.Y. Qurayishi put forward was that having to face the electorate more than once every 5 years enhances the accountability of politicians and keeps them on their toes. Thus, politicians are more likely to be transparent and actively respond to citizens' demands to win elections in the prevailing mechanism. 

All in all, the proposal, like any other policy, has several merits and contentions, all of which must be kept in mind. The policy has the power to decide India’s future and must prioritize democratic values and constitutional spirit while also aiding her development plans. We must simultaneously learn from history and also adapt to modern times, while keeping provisions for the generations to come, especially in political policymaking. And unlike that one NRI friend, we must critically analyze every international concept and adapt it to the Indian context to ensure sound policy.