One election, many issues

Despite stiff resistance, the saffron party is steamrolling its plan. But mustering the required numbers in Parliament will be an uphill task.

Former President Ram Nath Kovind presents the High-Level Committee’s report on simultaneous elections to President Droupadi Murmu, on September 18. Home Minister Amit Shah is also seen. | Photo Credit: ANI

In September 2023, the Narendra Modi government set up a high-level committee headed by former President Ram Nath Kovind to examine and give recommendations on the issue of holding simultaneous elections in the country. A year later, on September 18, the new Modi Cabinet accepted the committee’s recommendations, which proposed elections in two phases. (In the first phase, Lok Sabha and Assembly elections would be held simultaneously, and in the second, local body elections would be held within 100 days of the general election.) Over the past year, marathon meetings and feedback exercises with stakeholders and consultations with political parties were held to build a consensus on the issue, but opinions remain as sharply divided as they were when Modi first mooted the idea in 2017 during Diwali celebrations at the BJP headquarters in Delhi.

Earlier, the 2014 BJP election manifesto said that the party would “seek to evolve” a method for “holding Assembly and Lok Sabha elections simultaneously” through consultation with other parties.

Opposition to idea

Opponents of the idea say that simultaneous elections will compromise the federal nature of governance, undermine democratic diversity, and introduce administrative complexities that will far outweigh the benefits. Some also fear that this step could be a precursor to a shift from the parliamentary system to a presidential system while others said that it could lead to a hegemony of national parties and mark the end of regional outfits.

In June 2019, when the government called an all-party meeting to discuss the issue, most of the major opposition parties, such as the Congress, the Trinamool Congress, the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), the Samajwadi Party (SP), the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP), and the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), did not attend it. The undivided Shiv Sena, then an ally of the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA), and the Telugu Desam Party (TDP), currently an ally, also skipped it. Senior BJP leader and Defence Minister Rajnath Singh said after the meeting that of the 40 parties invited, only 21 attended.

On September 22, Singh, who has once again been tasked with bringing political parties on board, said that he would try to build a consensus since the government plans to table a Bill in this regard, perhaps as early as the winter session of Parliament. Opposition leaders in various States, such as Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, and Punjab, reacted sharply to the move, calling it an attempt to undermine the federal polity.

Impact on federalism

Harish S. Wankhede, an assistant professor at the Centre for Political Studies, School of Social Sciences, Jawaharlal Nehru University, told Frontline that the “one nation, one election” idea raises significant concerns about its impact on the country’s federal structure and democratic representation.

He said: “Holding simultaneous elections could diminish the focus on State-specific issues, as national concerns may dominate the discourse, marginalising regional interests. The concerns of marginalised social groups, particularly the Adivasis, that find some resonance in regional elections, in States such as Odisha, Madhya Pradesh, and Jharkhand, and in the north-eastern region, will be diluted under the force of national consensus. This may dilute the federal balance, where States have autonomy over issues that matter to their local populations.”

Wankhede also said that the logistical challenges of conducting elections across such a vast and diverse nation all at once are immense. He added: “Managing voter lists, security, and the sheer scale of organising elections for both national and State bodies simultaneously could strain the Election Commission’s resources. Additionally, it raises legal and constitutional challenges. What happens if a State government collapses mid-term? Will fresh elections be delayed to align with the national cycle, thereby extending or curtailing terms undemocratically?”

Challenge of holding simultaneous elections

Holding Lok Sabha and Assembly elections together will require all existing State Assemblies to be dissolved, each of which have different tenures. An Assembly can be dissolved either if the ruling government in the State recommends it voluntarily and the Governor gives assent or when there is a breakdown of the constitutional machinery and President’s Rule is imposed through a recommendation of the Central government. Given the divided nature of the polity, both possibilities are remote. Implementing the proposal of simultaneous elections will also require at least five constitutional amendments involving Articles 83, 85, 172, 174, and 356. Article 174 deals with the dissolution of State Assemblies, while Article 356 is concerned with the imposition of President’s Rule in States. The Law Commission’s draft report on simultaneous elections in 2018 also suggested that at least 50 per cent of the States should ratify the constitutional amendments.

While the BJP and its allies are holding on to the idea that simultaneous elections will save the taxpayers’ money, claiming it can be better used for development purposes, the opposition parties are unimpressed.

Representatives of the Congress, the Left parties, and the AAP said that it would not work in a democracy and that elections must be held as and when required. In September 2023 itself, Congress leader Rahul Gandhi said that the idea was an attack on the Indian Union and States.

Highlights

• Opponents of the idea say that simultaneous elections will compromise the federal nature of governance, undermine democratic diversity, and introduce administrative complexities that will far outweigh the benefits.
• Holding Lok Sabha and Assembly elections together will require all existing State Assemblies to be dissolved, each of which have different tenures.
• Between 1951 and 1967, elections to the Lok Sabha and Legislative Assemblies were held simultaneously.

Support for BJP

However, the BJP has already garnered the support of its allies such as the TDP and the Eknath Shinde-led Shiv Sena and all its allies in Bihar: the Janata Dal (United), the Lok Janshakti Party (Ram Vilas), and the Hindustani Awam Morcha (Secular). Even Mayawati’s BSP has come around to accepting the idea.

But managing the numbers in Parliament could still be a tricky affair. Any Bill to amend the Constitution can be passed by a majority of the total membership of that House and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of that House present and voting. As against the NDA’s strength of 293 members, the two-thirds majority in a fully attended Lok Sabha is 362. So, the government has to either mop up 69 votes from the non-NDA block, which would be a Herculean task even if one accounts for friendly non-NDA parties, or ensure the absence in Parliament of more than 100 members from the opposition.

Former Chief Election Commissioner S.Y. Quraishi in New Delhi in 2018. Quraishi told Frontline that despite some minor merits, the idea of “one nation, one election” faces significant challenges in the Indian context and was “deeply flawed”. | Photo Credit: SHIV KUMAR PUSHPAKAR

But this has not deterred the BJP from pursuing the idea, which is evident in the manner in which it is planning to implement it despite the opposition’s protests and objections from segments of civil society and political thinkers.

In its 2019 manifesto, the BJP stated that it was committed to holding simultaneous elections for Parliament, State Assemblies, and local bodies to reduce expenditure. But the BJP-led government took four years to set up the panel, and even that was opposed by 15 parties, including the Congress, the Left parties, and the AAP. In its 2024 election manifesto, the BJP again reiterated its commitment to the idea of simultaneous elections and said that it would “work towards the implementation of the recommendation of the committee”. After coming to power for his third consecutive term, Prime Minister Modi appealed to political parties from the Red Fort in his Independence Day speech to come forward and make the dream of “One Nation One Election” a reality for the progress of India. He claimed that frequent elections were becoming a hindrance to progress.

‘A deeply flawed idea’

While the concept of “one nation, one election” had some minor merits, it nonetheless faces significant challenges in the Indian context and was “deeply flawed”, former Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) S.Y. Quraishi told Frontline.

He said: “Crucially, in a country where each State follows its own political course, federalism will take a hit in simultaneous elections. What is one to do, for example, if a particular State witnesses an upturned majority after a few MLAs decide to shift loyalties? How are simultaneous elections to be continued in such a scenario?”

He added: “First, how will ‘one nation, one election’ work in case of a premature dissolution of the Lok Sabha? Would we also dissolve all the State assemblies then? This sounds unworkable, both in theory and in practice, for a democracy.”

The former CEC also said that holding panchayat elections separately within 100 days of the Lok Sabha and Assembly elections would contradict the essence of simultaneous elections, given that these elections would ignore over 30 lakh elected representatives at the local level. “Likewise, the need for about 40 lakh additional electronic voting machines poses significant financial and logistical hurdles,” he added.

According to Quraishi, frequent elections have their advantages, including holding politicians more accountable, generating grass-roots job opportunities, and separating local, regional, and national issues. He said: “In fact, instead of implementing simultaneous elections, it may be more practical to address issues like money power and lengthy campaign durations through targeted methods.”

Quraishi also said that the Kovind panel’s composition was problematic, as former or current election commissioners and regional party leaders were absent from it, and they may be the most affected and have the best recommendations for such a change.

Previous committees

This is not the first time a committee has recommended simultaneous elections. In 2015, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice submitted its 79th Report in which it recommended holding simultaneous elections in two phases.

Before that, in 1999, the 15th Law Commission of India released its 170th Report, on reforms of electoral laws, which also made a strong pitch for putting an end to the cycle of elections and going back to an earlier era, between 1951 and 1967, when elections to the Lok Sabha and Legislative Assemblies were held simultaneously.

It was the premature dissolution of some State Assemblies that led to separate elections for the Lok Sabha and Assemblies. In 1971, the Lok Sabha election had to be advanced following a split in the Congress party, which also contributed to elections being held separately.

In 1999, the Law Commission too, under the leadership of B.P. Jeevan Reddy, had advocated simultaneous elections. In 2016, the then President, Pranab Mukherjee, said that holding simultaneous elections could be highly beneficial, suggesting that the Election Commission of India (ECI) work towards this goal. In 2017, the NITI Aayog suggested simultaneous two-phase Lok Sabha and Assembly elections, claiming disruption to governance due to frequent electoral activity.

In 2018, the Law Commission organised a two-day consultation on the subject. But only four parties supported the idea. They were Shiromani Akali Dal, the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, the SP, and the Telangana Rashtra Samithi (now the Bharat Rashtra Samithi). Nine parties—BJP ally the Goa Forward Party, the Trinamool, the AAP, the DMK, the TDP, the CPI, the CPI(M), the Forward Bloc, and the Janata Dal (Secular)—opposed it. They found the move “undemocratic” and against the principles of federalism. The CPI(M) termed it an anti-Constitution move.

In 2022, the Election Commission said that it was ready to hold simultaneous elections but could only do so after the Constitution was amended.

This year, when the ECI announced the Lok Sabha election dates, the exercise stretched across seven phases, from April 19 to June 1, making the 44-day process the longest election in the country, second only to the 1951-52 exercise.

Subsequently, Assembly elections in Jharkhand, Jammu and Kashmir, Maharashtra, and Haryana—widely expected to be simultaneous—were divided into two phases, of which the Jammu and Kashmir election was split into three phases.

In each case, the ECI pointed to logistical issues, lack of security personnel, and administrative difficulties.

Given this, the BJP’s push for “one nation, one election” appears to stem more from ideological reasons than practical ones, experts say. The High-Level Committee chaired by Kovind, in its 281-page report, recommended that the government develop a “legally tenable mechanism” to hold simultaneous elections and indicated that 2029 could be a starting point. However, some experts believe that the exercise may take off only in the next general election in 2034. The committee also referred to the reports of 1999 and 2015 while offering its suggestions.

While the Kovind panel suggested setting up an implementation group, the Centre has pressed three senior Ministers Rajnath Singh, Kiren Rijiju, and Arjun Meghwal, to forge a consensus with parties across the political spectrum on the issue.