The One Nation, One Election proposal, a bill for which was introduced in the Lok Sabha last week, may or may not become a reality. But it is a bit embarrassing to see both the NDA and the Opposition alliance offering us arguments that can easily be refuted or devalued. Just as one simple message that connects with the voter can win an election, one solid argument – for or against ONOE – should be enough to validate or subvert the case for ONOE.
Let us dispense with bad or weak arguments first before we come to the less refutable ones on both sides. The unstated fear among Opposition politicians – that a popular Narendra Modi may end up winning both Centre and state elections if they are held together – must be addressed first if the latter are to sign up in favour of ONOE.
First, ONOE is not going to happen before 2029, by which time Modi will be 79, and possibly well past his political peak. Does the Opposition believe that even at that age, and with five more years of anti-incumbency building up, he can carry the nation and most states all by himself? If their answer is yes, it means they don’t believe in their own message to voters. Moreover, if the assumption is that people will vote similarly if state and national elections are held together, the Opposition should be happy: in 2024, if elections had been held simultaneously, it would have won Uttar Pradesh, Haryana and Maharashtra in the assemblies. By holding them separately, the Opposition lost momentum and gave the Bharatiya Janata Party time to re-strategise and win.
Second, the NDA’s cost-saving argument about holding elections simultaneously is a weak one. Sure, crores will be saved if elections to states and Centre are held together, but democracy can never be about saving money on elections. That is an argument for autocracy since elections can be few and far between, if not actually farcical. The high cost of holding elections should not deter us from opposing ONOE, assuming the argument is based on sound logic.
Costs can be saved even without ONOE, by state funding of elections, and curbing opaque private financing. Just by ending the Members of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme (MPLADS), which favours sitting MPs, we can save enough money (over Rs 20,000 crore over a five-year period) to finance modest state funding of candidates and parties.
Third, another weak argument – this one from the Opposition – is that the logistics involved in holding both parliamentary and state elections at the same time can be challenging. Also, voters may find it difficult to distinguish between state and national elections. The varying results in Odisha before 2024, where people voted differently in state and parliamentary elections that were held simultaneously, tell us that voters do know the difference. Even assuming this is difficult, especially in an election where national security comes up as a major issue (as in 2019), one can hold voting on two separate days around the same time for parliamentary and state elections. The problem of limited voter confusion is not insoluble.
Fourth, a stronger argument against ONOE is what happens if a government falls after an election. While the proposed solution is to hold mid-term elections only for the remainder of the period before the next schedule of national elections, this will be unsatisfactory, especially if a government falls in its fourth year. No one will be happy about fighting an election with an effective validity of just one year.
Also read: BJP is 10 years late in pushing one nation, one election. Modi isn’t as popular now
Finding solutions
There can be solutions to this problem by small dilutions of the basic ONOE idea. One is to hold two elections in a five-year period (suggested by many), one every two-and-a-half years.
Other solutions can also be found. For example, if a government falls, it does not imply that elections have to be held immediately. The elected legislators continue to hold legitimacy, and the governor can be empowered to select a multi-party ministry to govern till the next election. In the United States, many states authorise governors to appoint replacements for senators who die or resign in between their terms. There is no reason why a democratically elected legislature cannot be asked to govern under the broad direction of the governor, or president in case it is the central government that fails to complete its term.
This problem would be less acute in a One Nation, Two Elections scenario, where the maximum period of political uncertainty will be two-and-a-half years. Easing anti-defection laws to enable government formation in case of a premature collapse could be another solution.
This brings me to the best argument for ONOE: improved governance. The problem with the current system of elections is that we have many major polls every single year, each one of them forcing politicians to focus on winning rather than governing. Then, there is the Model Code of Conduct, and restraints on making policy decisions till the elections are over. Frequent polling also precipitates a shower of freebies just before any election anywhere. We are in a race to the bottom in terms of fiscal prudence.
Also read: Global media goes ‘inside’ the RSS & ‘decodes’ one nation one election
Can ONOE work?
ONOE will ensure that elected central and state governments have at least four-and-a-half years to focus on doing the right things instead of frittering away their time worrying about re-election every single year.
This single argument is what tilts the balance in favour of ONOE, possibly with a legislative tweak enabling an election after two-and-a-half years if any government falls midway and no substitute seems likely.
ONOE could work well if power between Centre, state and local bodies were better distributed, with authority being devolved downwards to states and even further to municipal and local bodies. The worry about Central politicians dominating simultaneous election agendas will disappear if the Centre’s control is reduced and distributed downwards. If real power rests with local bodies, ONOE will cease to be a threat. Local bodies are where real democracies will be tested. For this is where the citizen interacts most with the state.
R Jagannathan is editorial director at Swarajya magazine. Views are personal.
(Edited by Zoya Bhatti)
There are 2 key elements: at least 4.5 yrs to focus on governance: and take real democracy to the final point of governance at local level with sufficient budget and accountability.
ONOE is indeed an important milestone in growing democracy, making every citizen down to the remote village owing responsibility for life in a society. Need educated debates, on various strategies of the writer, not hooliganism of the current parliament of crows and howlers.
The main point in favor of ONOE that Jaggi illustrates in this article is for stability of tenures that is elected governments having enough time to work without having to think at their back every 6 months. But this can be easily resolved by having the Vote of No confidence to work only if a Vote of confidence is present for other group in legislature that is positive vote of no confidence just like Germany. Besides we can synchronize current multiple state election cycles into 2 to 3 cycles. The other issue of MCC is that why does MCC apply on every arm of government when their is an election , it can be reduce to be applicable on that arm of government only of which elections are taking place. Duration of MCC can also be reduced by Categorising MCC into grades, like MCC Grade 1 with less restrictions will be applicable at declaration of election after that 10 days before Grade 2 with more restrictions, and Grade 3 with full restrictions 5 days before election date. The point is why these alternate strategies instead of ONOE. Because ONOE first of all ONOE will not entail in stability of government as said in this article, as seen in this article if a government falls the ensuing midterm government will result in excessive rent seeking or spulrging seeing the history of short lived governments, They will try to maximize spending in that 1 year or 2 year time frame.
Major Security Cons of ONOE
The staggered election cycle in India has ensured that no alien poweres through misinformation campaigns can change the power structure of whole country at a single time.
The change of all governments at a single time generates a power vacuum.
The staggered election cycles keeps opposition poles engaged and not some lost out child for five years ensurign stability to political architecture of the country.
What we need to ensure stability ?
1. Positive Vote of No Confidence
2. Sate Eelction Tenure of 8 years.
3. Municipal bodies should be given more powers (the best which can happen), a third list in the constitution besides concurrent, state, union and Local List(Janpad).
I rest my case.
It is very difficult to believe anything that BJP brings. The new scheme may be good, but it’s implementaion by BJP usually turns very bad.
quite amazing arguments without getting into the basics. The overwhelming complaint and to some extent true also is centre is usrping the powers of states through governers and now the suggestion is to handover governors full control when the elected government falls till the next scheduled date of election. No one till now seems to have questioned why the PM has to canvass all through the elected period in one or another election, when is holding a constitutional position and responsibility to rule the country. Let the individual state leaders manage their state elections and we have unwavered attention of all others on governance throughout the full period. :Lastly, are we in a position to hold election in one go, when we are having seven phases spanning over more than one and half month for single election? Let us first solve this, so that the entire country need not in limbo for 3 months once in five years.