India can’t constantly be in campaign mode—simultaneous elections are good for voters & parties

Detractors of One Nation, One Election aren’t thinking of voter fatigue. When elections are multiple and frequent, even the educated voter views them as an extra holiday.

Headquarters of the Election Commission in New Delhi | Representational image | Manisha Mondal | ThePrint

The Bill to hold simultaneous elections for the Parliament and state Assemblies is expected to be tabled in the Lok Sabha this week. India saw ‘One Nation, One Election’ for the last time in 1967—the year of my birth—when the fourth Lok Sabha was voted in.

The first time the entire nation voted together was in Jawaharlal Nehru’s era, in the first-ever general elections in 1951. It was an exercise of gargantuan proportions to conduct simultaneous elections for the world’s largest democracy. There were 1,874 candidates and more than 64 political parties, including the Indian National Congress and Communist Party of India, contesting for 489 Lok Sabha seats.

With a voting population of 17.6 crore—82 per cent of it illiterate—registering voters posed a huge challenge. But our founding fathers did it successfully, and the system worked for 19 years. In 1970, Indira Gandhi—recently expelled from the Congress and leading a precarious coalition of regional parties—dissolved the fourth Lok Sabha. She declared that general elections would be held in early 1971, 15 months ahead of schedule, effectively decoupling the Central and federal election process.

This act paved the way for Gandhi’s dictatorial reign, the declaration of the Emergency, and the public massacre of democracy in the world’s largest republic.

Political machinations

Gandhi’s legacy is now being carried forward by her illustrious grandchildren. They wear the mantle of the First Family with elan and are the self-appointed ‘keepers of federal freedom’, although it was their great grandfather who led the brigade in attempting to dismiss the ‘First Elected Communist Government in the World’, in July 1959, in Kerala.

Historian VK Ananth called it “a historically significant abuse of Article 356 of the Constitution”. At a recent event, my co-panellist, a journalist and Rajya Sabha MP, called the BJP out for the alleged misuse of power in arresting a ‘sitting chief minister’, completely disregarding historical and legal precedents set by Nehru and his daughter.

The panellist, of course, was referring to the arrest of the corrupt Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal who has been implicated in multiple scams. Her memory failed her when recalling the Congress’ record of using Article 356 as a weapon to dismiss non-Congress governments in the states 88 times. It was only in 1994 that the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment, S.R. Bommai vs UOI, restricted the arbitrary misuse of Article 356.

It must be noted that, unlike the Congress’ history, Kejriwal was arrested for corruption and Article 356 wasn’t used to dismiss the AAP government in Delhi.

Voter turnout

In India, voter turnout disparities between general elections and local civic or municipal elections are significant. For general elections, turnout tends to be much higher, even reaching 65 per cent. In contrast, municipal and civic elections generally see lower participation, with voter turnout averaging around 52 per cent for municipal elections. Urban areas, particularly metro cities, experience even lower turnout for local elections, with some regions seeing as little as 40 per cent turnout.

These disparities may be attributed to various factors, including voter apathy toward local governance, less media coverage, and a lack of strong political engagement in civic matters. If elections were held simultaneously, we would see a significantly higher voter turnout for civic elections, giving democracy a chance to elect candidates of calibre even at the grassroots.

Regional resources

President Ram Nath Kovind, in his report on ‘One Nation, One Election’ (ONOE), emphasised that synchronising elections would help reduce the frequency of election cycles, minimise costs, and ensure uninterrupted governance. He stressed the need for a broad political consensus and constitutional amendments to implement the concept.

When elections take place in one part of a country, they can indirectly affect operations in other areas as resources get divided, work comes to a standstill, and employees take leaves to return home to vote. For instance, during the Haryana elections, a Chennai-based businessman who has operations in Haryana will be impacted due to the model code of conduct, policy change, or campaigning disruptions.

Cost saving

FICCI (Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry) and CII (Confederation of Indian Industry) have suggested that elections be held every five years for the Centre, state, and local bodies. In case a government in power loses the majority, they should be allowed to seek a vote of confidence within ten days or else hold elections only for the remaining term. The data is available.

Holding simultaneous elections can save the exchequer anything between Rs 7,500 to Rs 12,000 crore. “Simultaneous elections can reduce the overall expenditure incurred on general as well as state legislatures, making it more cost-effective and at the same time there are less days of productive work that are lost due to multiple elections,” CII said.

Calculus of voting

Detractors of ONOE don’t take into account voter fatigue. When multiple elections are held for multiple governments, the voter is not motivated to vote. Even the educated voter uses the extra holiday for a family vacation.

Rather than engaging in Modi-bashing, the Opposition should study the work of professor Csaba Nikolenyi on the topic of concurrent elections, including India’s ‘One Nation, One Election’ debate.

Nikolenyi analysed data from India, comparing voter behaviours in state and national elections held together and separately. He also used some formulae to calculate voter motivations.

There is a formula in political science called the “calculus of voting”, initially developed by political scientists William Riker and Peter Ordeshook. The formula, R=PB−C+D, helps explain why people decide to vote despite the low probability that their vote will make a decisive difference.

In the formula, R represents the reward gained by voting. P stands for the probability that the vote is decisive and B, the individual’s benefits if their preferred candidate wins the election. C represents the cost of voting and D, the sense of civic duty.

If the reward is more than 0, a citizen will vote. If it is lower, they won’t.

Nikolyeni developed this basic formula and applied it to India’s electoral data. “This article has found strong support for the hypothesis that the co-temporality of state elections should increase voter turnout in the national parliamentary elections in India’s states,” he concluded.

Administrative efficiency

Holding elections simultaneously would reduce the strain on administrative and security forces. Currently, officials are engaged in election duties multiple times a year. A unified election schedule would streamline operations and allow more focus on governance. Every year, 4 months are lost to elections alone.

Finally, the system that works efficiently for the entire world can work effectively for India too.

As a former member of Parliament who has contested two Lok Sabha elections and a party member who has campaigned extensively for candidates in different states, I have witnessed first-hand the problems of not implementing ONOE. The frequent elections scattered over time not only lead to exhaustion among voters but also a significant waste of resources, campaign time, equipment, and public funds.

The nation cannot constantly be in electioneering mode. This inefficiency underscores the need for a more streamlined electoral process.

It would be a good idea for all parties to set aside their differences, and in the greater interest of the nation and democracy, vote to pass the 129th Amendment Bill into law.

Meenakashi Lekhi is a BJP leader, lawyer, and social activist. Her X handle is @M_Lekhi. Views are personal.

(Edited by Prasanna Bachchhav)