India, with an electorate of more than 800 million, holds some election or the other throughout the year, at various levels. Conducting elections in India is no mean feat, and requires considerable monetary as well as logistical efforts, both on part of the government and the Election Commission on one hand, and on the political parties on the other. Moreover, during elections to the Lok Sabha or the legislative assemblies, a model code of conduct remains in place right from the moment the dates of the elections are announced, till the day of completion of all the processes. During this period, no government can undertake measures, including announcement or inauguration of new projects or schemes which may be seen as means to influence the electorate. With elections being staggered over several phases, the model code of conduct remains in force even for two-three months at a stretch in certain cases, which many politicians view was detrimental to developmental work, given that some part of the country is under the model code at some point or the other every year. A tremendous amount of expenditure is undertaken by the central and state governments in order to conduct elections to the Lok Sabha and the assemblies respectively.
In this context, starting from the 1980s, various agencies like the Election Commission of India and the Law Commission have proposed streamlining of elections, to reduce the hassle of conducting elections every year in different parts of the country. From 2014 onwards, there has been a further push to this idea by the government as well as its think-tank, the NITI Aayog, which suggested that having national and state elections at one go using a common electoral roll would be helpful not only in cutting costs to a huge degree, but would also not hinder developmental work. The proposed solution was to hold polls in two phases- with Lok Sabha and 14 Legislative Assemblies going in the first phase, while the remaining assemblies whose terms end later would have the elections in the second phase. (Debroy and Desai, 2017)
However, such a proposal is riddled with a lot of constraints given that the terms of the various elected bodies are not in sync, due to a number of factors. The first elections in 1951-52 for the Lok Sabha and the state assemblies were held concurrently, and a similar situation prevailed till 1967, barring a few exceptions. The Lok Sabha was dissolved mid-term in 1970, with elections scheduled for 1971, while most states had their assembly terms till 1972- thus delinking both the polls. During the first one and a half decades of the Republic, the Congress prevailed in the elections, both at the central and the state levels, with other parties enjoying pockets of local influence. The Communist Party of India managed to form the government in Kerala after 1957, but their government was dismissed by the Centre in 1959, and the Kerala assembly was dissolved, with fresh elections being conducted in 1960. This trend increased as electoral politics in India became more competitive and the Congress hegemony was threatened by newer political parties; many of them its own splinter groups at the state level from the 1960s. Several Congress governments fell in states post-1967, due to loss in elections, and due to defection from the Congress as the party was slowly losing its popularity and as Indira Gandhi attempted to centralise powers both within the party and the government. The governments of the opposition parties were routinely dismissed, and assemblies dissolved under central directives, till the Supreme Court in the SR Bommai v. The Union of India case (1994) placed constraints on the exercising of Article 356 by the central government. As a result of arbitrary dismissal of the governments from time to time, the terms of the assemblies were no longer in sync with each other. Moreover, the 1980s saw the rise of the coalition governments both at the state level and by the 1990s, at the central level as well, which led to political instability, as coalitions were often fragile- for instance, the 1990s saw 4 Lok Sabha elections. Further, the law and order issues during the insurgency in Punjab, Kashmir and many of the North-Eastern states prevented timely elections, as a result of which simultaneous elections became impossible. Additionally, with the 73rd and 74th amendment to the Constitution, elections were now also held for the urban and rural local bodies, as a result of which the number of elections held also increased to a large extent, and synchronizing elections became a far more difficult proposition, as the rules followed in case of the local elections are diverse, decided by the state governments.
Therefore, for several historical factors the prospect of ‘one nation, one election’ seems distant. While most political parties have agreed to these in principle, there were reservations on any attempts to hastily implement such a proposal, without observing due procedure. Several political parties, primarily the regional parties have argued that simultaneous elections would threaten the federal character of the state as national issues are likely to prevail over state issues in simultaneous elections. Moreover, studies (Chakravarty,2016) have indicated how in 77% cases a voter is likely to prefer the same political party in simultaneous elections, with such a tendency on the rise in recent years. Further, any attempt to synchronise elections in the first place would require wide-ranging constitutional amendments which would require a political consensus, since the tenures of some state assemblies are likely to be curtailed, and others extended, which might end up in political contentions among the parties at a time when inter-party relations are frosty to say the least. There is also no clarity on how to deal with scenarios wherein a given legislature cannot complete its five-year term – if President’s Rule is imposed for the remainder of the term, then that again goes against the tenets of federalism as well as the right of the people to choose their rulers. It would also require evolving transitional processes. Former Election Commissioner, SY Quraishi has argued that simultaneous elections reduce accountability as continuous elections keep them on their toes. Also, on the question of reducing spending, Quraishi suggests other reforms like state funding of elections to curb unabashed flow of money.
At the moment, the idea is in a nebulous state, and would certainly require more ideation to remove any grey area which might potentially be a bone of contention, both legally and politically. Moreover, any such move would also require the confidence of the various stakeholders of the electoral process-the general public, political parties as well as the Election Commission. There are also constitutional constraints in this case, and therefore implementing this would require considerable consensus of the various parties at stake, which would certainly require a lot of deliberations and discussions.
Debanjan is a second year student of History at St.Stephen's College, Delhi