Look beyond simultaneous polls
THE relationship between the electorate and the elected representatives is that of demand and supply. In a democracy, the latter work towards fulfilling the former’s aspirations. The ruling party tries to keep its poll promises, sometimes working to fulfil its own vision of what it thinks is good for the people and the country.
Recent examples show that the ECI has opted to stagger elections that could have been easily combined.
One Nation, One Election (ONOE) may be a part of the BJP’s election manifesto, but surely it wasn’t demanded by any section of society, even though some people felt that India suffered from “too much democracy”. That the ruling party was convinced about the merits of ONOE was evident from the repeated assertions of its leadership and the way in which the terms of the Ram Nath Kovind committee were drafted. Its recommendations were a foregone conclusion, but the speed with which the government acted on it has surprised many. Having been elected with a truncated mandate, few expected the NDA government to vigorously pursue this matter, especially since its implementation is far away.
The ‘farsightedness’ of the government in wanting to legislate on something to be implemented a decade from now is intriguing. Similar alacrity was exhibited in passing the Women’s Reservation Bill (Nari Shakti Vandan Adhiniyam, labelled “a post-dated cheque”) before the 2024 General Election. The difference is complete unanimity in passing the women’s Bill but a total divergence in opinion about the desirability of the Constitution (129th Amendment) Bill that pertains to ONOE.
The government won’t mind referring the Bill to a joint parliamentary committee as this would satisfy the Opposition and reflect its own open-mindedness. The passage of the Bill in a hurry might not be the objective; bringing it on the table and opening up the possibility of a consensus would serve the purpose as everyone would feel they are deliberating a ‘grand’ electoral reform. But is it so?
Simultaneous polls were held for 15 years after 1951 without an express provision to this effect in the Constitution. The chain was broken due to the vicissitudes and dynamics of power politics. The right to vote in favour or against a government is an essential ingredient of a democracy. While the Bill doesn’t take away the right of withdrawing support to a ruling party, it offers the voters the right to elect a government for a curtailed period in order to complete the “unexpired term” of the government that is voted out. Thus, an outgoing elected regime would pave the way for an incoming elected substitute for a limited period.
The voter will be electing the playing eleven once every five years to fulfil the fetish of simultaneous elections and elect ‘extras’ or a ‘nightwatchman’ to replace an injured main player (government). The current system applicable to electing members of Parliament or legislative assemblies in a byelection will now apply to the entire House in the event of mid-term polls.
Parliamentarians may consider whether this twisting of the people’s right would diminish the character of our democracy. What would be achieved by creating this duality? Is simultaneity such a sacred objective or a fundamental principle that issues affecting democratic choice should be thus subordinated to managerial efficiency? The wisdom of the lawmakers is on trial. After all, the framers of the Constitution didn’t provide for simultaneous elections and left it to the Election Commission of India (ECI) to act within the constitutional framework to deal with the exigencies of any situation.
Nobody can dispute the benefits of a short, swift, single predictable exercise, especially when it involves a billion people. While holding elections is a routine democratic exercise, it is not like the UPSC conducting civil services exams once a year as per a fixed schedule. Administrative efficiency is desirable and there are ways in which the conduct of elections could be less time-consuming and involving less manpower. The excessive dependence on paramilitary forces, cited as a bottleneck forcing the ECI to conduct prolonged multi-phased elections, is due to the volatile nature of our politics and the vitriolic campaigning. The extant laws do empower the ECI to hold elections six months prior to the expiry of the term of any House, giving it a certain flexibility in scheduling and bunching elections for efficient management. However, recent examples show that the ECI has opted to stagger elections that could have been easily combined. Clearly, expediency is more persuasive than a hidebound adherence to the principle of simultaneity.
Whether this so-called reform passes muster in Parliament or not, it is time the government and political parties took up more substantive electoral reforms pertaining to the issues of cash, crime, caste, community, the integrity of the electoral process, disqualification of candidates and capping the poll expenditure that have been suggested by the ECI and are languishing for long. Simultaneous elections are intended to reduce government expenditure in conducting elections, but what about controlling the use of black money in polls, and finding transparent ways for political funding? The Bill doesn’t target these through the so-called reforms.
Let it be known that the Model Code of Conduct prohibits only a certain category of public expenditure with a view to denying the ruling party an unfair advantage by spending public resources. One wonders why ruling parties should wait till before the elections for taking major policy decisions and dub them as “disruptors of governance”.
Further, elections in any state concern the voters and political leaders of that state, neither affecting the voters of other states nor the Central Government unless the party leadership is obsessed with campaigning everywhere, not letting the local leadership manage state-level campaigns. Would simultaneous elections further diminish the focus on elected local bodies and turn them into nondescript representatives of their central leadership rather than effective representatives of local voters?
The efficient conduct of elections is definitely a source of satisfaction, but a democracy needs much more. As parliamentarians spend their precious time making the conduct of elections more efficient in the distant future, they would do well to devote time to the issues affecting the people here and now. The hazardous air quality in the Capital, especially outside Parliament, the depletion of groundwater, the pollution of our rivers, the pathetic conditions of our educational institutions and public health facilities, and the environmental degradation facing the country are more immediate and pressing issues of governance and deserve their attention as much as the matter of simultaneous polls.
The citizens of India may not be exhausted by exercising their voting right frequently, but they might be exhausted waiting for their aspirations of a decent living to be fulfilled.
