SIMULTANEOUS POLLS ARE A FLAWED IDEA

The Niti Aayog recently circulated a discussion paper on how Lok Sabha and assembly elections in the country can be held simultaneously. The paper suggests that the states scheduled to hold elections between 2018 and 2021 can go to the polls in 2019, along with the Lok Sabha elections, by reducing or extending their assembly tenures by three to 15 months. The rest can be taken up with the 2024 Lok Sabha elections in the same way. The idea may look good on paper, but is not workable. It is based on flawed arguments and assumptions. More importantly, it is not in keeping with the spirit of Indian democracy.

First, the arguments: This is not the first time that the idea of synchronising Lok Sabha and assembly polls has been mooted. BJP leader LK Advani had proposed it in 1995 and again in 2010; the idea found favour with the Law Commission in 1999, when the NDA was in power, and with a parliamentary standing committee later. But the biggest push has come in recent times, with both Prime Minister Narendra Modi and BJP president Amit Shah throwing their weight behind the idea. A group of ministers has since been set up under home minister Rajnath Singh to come up with a plan. The rationale is that it would “help reduce expenditure, end policy paralysis and save time”.

It is not clear how policy paralysis could be attributed to frequent assembly elections. Surely that was not the case with what we saw during the second tenure of Manmohan Singh as prime minister. On the contrary, policy paralysis often comes with centralisa- tion of powers, when ministers take to campaigning more than the work they ought to do and when the government isn’t sure if its policies are really intended to benefit the people.

As for expenditure, the data for the past 15 years on what the government spends to hold elections show that it has risen in sync with the inflation rate and accounts for a minuscule share of the budget spend. A good part of the increase has come on account of a bigger deployment of security forces, the reasons for which don’t go away if elections are held simultaneously.

The core assumption underlying the rationale for simultaneous elections is as flawed as the argument. It is assumed that once a party is elected to power, at the Centre or in the states, it will complete a five-year term, or that the government at the Centre and the states will all go at the same time. It is assumed that political coalitions will be stable, at least for five years, at all levels. None of these has held true in independent India’s political history.

It is also assumed that assembly and Lok Sabha elections are fought on the same issues and on the same merit, or that campaigns can seamlessly address local and national issues when these elections are held simultaneously. Such assumptions can be politically so alienating.

The United States stays in perennial election mode. The US House of Representatives goes to the polls every two years and the Senate, partially, also every two years, and the president is elected every four years. Frequent elections aren’t bad because they cost money. They are bad when they are occasioned by a fragmented polity and eroding legitimacy of political parties, as has been India’s experience over the past three decades. The solution lies in cleaning up our political system, building accountability on the part of our politicians and political parties, educating our voters, and so on. Simultaneous elections are no answer.

Elections keep politicians on their toes. The fear of the voters’ wrath is the only deterrent for erring politicians. We do not want, and we must not let, that fear to lose its place.

FREQUENT ELECTIONS AREN’T BAD BECAUSE THEY COST MONEY. THEY ARE BAD WHEN THEY ARE OCCASIONED BY A FRAGMENTED POLITY AND ERODING LEGITIMACY