The Election Commission of India (ECI) last week said it would be in a position to hold uniform or simultaneous elections all across the country by the end of 2018. If it eventually happens, in 2018 or whenever, the world can sit up and watch wide-eyed because it will be the biggest democratic exercise ever conceived by man!
For the 2014 parliamentary elections, the total electorate count was 814.5mn which itself was 101mn more than the 2009 polls. By that token we are looking at the possibility of close to a billion people making their way to polling stations to elect as many as 6,000 representatives for parliament and state assemblies. Of course, the actual number of votes polled will be around 600mn if statistics of the previous elections are anything to go by. 
The ECI expressed its opinion on a reference by the Narendra Modi government whether it will have the wherewithal to undertake such a gigantic effort if the government were to ask it so. And for the government to make that request it will first have to get approval from both houses of parliament where parties have varying degrees of differences on the issue. And even if parliament were to decide on simultaneous elections, rest assured that the matter will end up in the Supreme Court which can take its sweet time to decide one way or the other. 
So, all that is being debated hotly on the pros and cons of simultaneous elections is, simply put, just hot air. Nevertheless a debate is highly desirable because democracy thrives on it.
Opinions on the subject are split down the middle. Those who oppose it, apart from highlighting the impracticality of the exercise, say it will be the death-knell of democracy because given India’s diversity, a one-size-fits-all election will be unjust and illogical. Democracy, they content, cannot be straightjacketed into fixed tenures for legislatures because it goes against the grain of the free will of the people that is expressed through elections. Alright that every time a parliament or state assembly is elected, it is supposedly for five years. But opinions, of parties and politicians, can change and so the people should have the choice to elect another government.
With the exception of a couple of states, the first four elections after independence were held simultaneously. But with parties splitting and splintering, mainly the Congress Party under Indira Gandhi, and coalitions becoming the order of the day, it soon became a multi-poll exercise. As The Indian Express said in a recent editorial, “the parliamentary, federal system has worked well for a country of diverse voices and many minorities. The idea of simultaneous polls – one nation, one polls – threatens to re-arrange, curb and flatten out this plural and layered federal system by giving it a more presidential and unitary character. It must be resisted.”
Those, like The Indian Express, who oppose the idea also wonder what would happen if state governments are not able to complete their full terms. And for that matter, there is no guarantee that even the government at the centre could run the full five years, especially in a coalition scenario. 
On the other hand, those who advocate simultaneous polls – Prime Minister Modi foremost among them – feel that a country on perennial election mode does not make a good example either of democracy or good governance. The state assemblies and the Lok Sabha are elected for a five-year tenure but as governments in the state fall with increasing regularities, India is forever holding one election or the other. 
The disadvantages here are many and perhaps outweigh the reasons put forward by the ‘naysayers’. The cost of holding an assembly election is not small. And with each passing year it is mounting. (The figure mentioned for the 2014 Lok Sabha polls is Rs400bn. The combined expenditure for polls to the 29 state assemblies could be three times larger). Yes, a large number of people find work as campaign volunteers, poster makers and stage managers for rallies but these are basically unproductive and temporary jobs that contribute little to the GDP and, therefore, a major part of all that money is simply wasted.
In the run-up to the announcement of the election dates the ruling party goes on a spree of populist measures in order to “bribe” the people into voting for it. While the results of the election may not be impacted by such gimmicks, such dole eventually takes a toll on the state exchequer leaving the subsequent government to carry the burden. If polls are held simultaneously, political parties would be more careful about declaring such sops because they will have to replicate them in other in other states.
But perhaps the worst impact of variable election dates is on governance itself. Once the ECI announces the dates, the ‘moral code of conduct’ takes effect. From then on virtually no government work gets done as all offices go into a sort of suspended animation. In fact, it is well known that officers and clerks take election time as a sort of paid vacation. Schemes that had been announced even before the model code of conduct came into effect will have to be put on hold until the election process is completed. Roads and bridges or factories or educational institutions cannot be opened during this period. In short nothing moves. Multiply this 29 times and imagine the cumulative effect on the country.
As for the fall of a state government, or even the federal government, before the end of its stipulated five years, the effective way is to elect another government for the remaining period and then join the mainstream for simultaneous polls. After all, a by-election for a vacant seat in the Lok Sabha or the assemblies entitles the winner to be a member of the house only for the duration of that house. This may be as short as six months. And if a government falls within handshaking distance of the next general elections, the intervening period can automatically be brought under President’s Rule.
Most advocates of status quo see the move towards simultaneous polls as Modi’s attempt to convert India into a presidential democracy. But they are probably unaware that the Law Commission of India headed by J P Jeevan Reddy had recommended simultaneous polls as early as 1999. In 2012 veteran Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Lal Krishna Advani wrote to the president suggesting that the country should move towards the ‘one nation, one poll’ concept. 
The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice had in December 2015 recommended holding simultaneous assembly and Lok Sabha elections to reduce expenditure and frequent disruption of normal life. Interestingly, the committee was headed by E M Sudarsana Natchiappan, Rajya Sabha member belonging to the Congress Party.
Speaking on the occasion of the National Voters Day in January this year, then president Pranab Mukherjee told Indians: “I do believe that if political parties seriously agree on this (simultaneous polls) issue with the help of EC, it may be possible…. It will remove lot of inconvenience both in terms of expenditure and management”.
The ECI may have said it is ready for simultaneous polls. But the commission is only one cog in the giant wheel that is Indian democracy. Naturally a wide-ranging debate is called for. Modi has set the ball rolling. And going by his record, especially on matters like demonetisation and the Goods and Services Tax, the prime minister is no respecter of status quo. He is fast earning a reputation as a ‘disrupter’. In that sense one nation, one poll may not be all that far away.
Related Story