Thank you dear subscribers, we are overwhelmed with your response.
Your Turn is a unique section from ThePrint featuring points of view from its subscribers. If you are a subscriber, have a point of view, please send it to us. If not, do subscribe here: https://theprint.in/subscribe/
Ever since the 2024 general elections were announced on March 16th, there has been a surge of anticipation regarding the pledges each political party will make in their election manifesto. “An intriguing trend in election manifestos since Narendra Modi assumed office is the competition to release them as close to the election date as possible. This strategy aims to garner media attention and sway voters. This was evident in the nine-day interval between the release of the Congress and BJP’s manifestos on April 5th and April 14th, respectively. This is an improvement over the 2014 general election when the BJP unveiled its manifesto on the day of the first phase of voting. To say this decision was surprising would be an understatement. The reason I’m delving into the details of the election manifesto is because the BJP’s latest manifesto has pledged to turn the concept of ‘one nation, one election’ into a reality. Based on recent experiences, one should not underestimate the weight of BJP’s election promises. Consider the Ram Mandir pledge, which has been a part of every election manifesto since 1996. Some even perceived it as a ‘jumla’ (a false promise) intended to appease their core supporters. Paraphrasing a statement from Sekhar Gupta, the BJP strategizes for tomorrow’s elections today, which could be indicative of their long-term vision. No matter how much the current administration extols the virtues of ‘one nation, one election’, it’s essential to scrutinize its benefits and weigh them against the potential downsides to determine if it’s a viable proposition.
The current administration is promoting several advantages of ‘one nation, one election’, including a decrease in election expenses, uninterrupted implementation of government welfare schemes, and the avoidance of a perpetual election cycle. Upon objective examination, there is some validity to the points they are raising. Elections, whether parliamentary, state, or municipal, are expensive undertakings. Each election necessitates the mobilization of hundreds, if not thousands, of polling staff, security personnel, and electronic voting machines (EVM). However, the idea of conducting a single election may not be as beneficial as it seems. The savings from reducing poll worker compensation and security deployment could be outweighed by the expenses of acquiring extra EVMs needed to carry out all elections in one cycle. Currently, (EVMs) are repurposed and moved to other areas where they were required after an election was over, thereby decreasing the cost of procurement. There are numerous instances across the political landscape where district magistrates have declined to approve toilets and other welfare initiatives proposed by the central government. This is often done to adhere to the Model Code of Conduct (MCC), particularly during state legislative or municipal corporation elections in different regions of the country. The aforementioned procedure does hold some merit, as providing benefits near election time could unfairly sway voters in favor of the current officeholders. This is one of those situations where there doesn’t seem to be a perfect solution. The perpetual cycle of elections throughout the nation can sometimes divert the central government’s focus, particularly as it needs to adjust its policies based on the outcomes in each state or municipality. Before the advent of the internet and social media, this wouldn’t have posed much of an issue as elections were localized and their impact was confined to their respective region. However, in today’s context, every election result, whether in favor of or against the central or state government, is amplified and often interpreted as a referendum on its policies. At times, people express their dissatisfaction with central policies at the state level, as witnessed in the recent 2022 Punjab legislative elections. Despite the state BJP unit not being directly accountable for the farm laws, they faced significant backlash from the Punjab electorate in the state elections.
Despite the current issues, it doesn’t justify merging the national, state, and municipal elections into a single election cycle. This could lead to numerous unresolved queries, such as what occurs when governments lack the confidence of the legislature and are compelled to form an unstable coalition. This could result in policy stagnation or the imposition of the president’s rule, during which no new initiatives are launched. It appears that Narendra Modi’s primary motivation isn’t necessarily the talking points he officially cites, but rather to circumvent the need to repeatedly campaign for multiple elections at different levels. This is especially relevant given that in most cases, votes are solicited in his name. His strategy appears to be winning all elections in one fell swoop, then focusing solely on governance without distractions. While this approach may seem commendable, it could potentially lead to a lack of accountability during the term, as there would be no avenue for the public to voice their dissatisfaction through state or municipal elections.
An alternative approach could be to divide the elections into cycles of either fifteen or twenty months. If a government collapses during an election phase, presidential rule would be imposed until the next phase commences. In this manner, governance disruption is minimized, and any coalition government would be cautious about withdrawing support, as there would be no opportunity for fresh elections within the fixed time frame. This procedure could be further refined over time by avoiding concurrent elections. For instance, when general elections are conducted, there would be no state or municipal elections. Similarly, when state elections are held, no municipal elections would take place in that state during that period to prevent the influence of more potent and affluent campaigns. In other words, for example, state elections in West Bengal would coincide with municipal elections in Karnataka, but there would be no legislative and municipal elections in the same state at one time or simultaneous parliamentary and legislative elections.
These pieces are being published as they have been received – they have not been edited/fact-checked by ThePrint