Recent utterances of Prime Minister Damodardass Modi have set the ball rolling in the discussion on the issue of simultaneous elections in India. The proposal to hold all Assembly and Lok Sabha (Parliamentary) elections across the country in one go came first from him and it has been echoed by many of his supporters.
Earlier this week, President Pranab Mukherjee had also spoken in favour of the same thought, saying holding simultaneous polls to Parliament and state assemblies would help governments concentrate more on their work — meaning governance.
Orissa stands out in this issue as it already has simultaneous elections being held with Lok Sabha since 2004. The Biju Janata Dal (BJD) — Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) combine at that time had a strong majority in the state Assembly.
Normal elections were due 2005. Yet, Chief Minister Naveen Patnaik, in a bid to save crores for the state exchequer dissolved the Assembly close to a year in advance and opted for simultaneous elections. This helped the state financially as the Center bore both the state and Lok Sabha election cost.
At the same time, that smart move also helped the BJD get an upper hand in all the ensuing general elections as no national party was in a position to concentrate all its resources and manpower on the state.
The idea of the entire nation having elections held only once in five years presupposes that an elected government could continue for its full term. This need not necessarily be the case at all times. No-confidence motions are part of the system of parliamentary functioning, and the Opposition has the full right to pull down a government midway through its term, based on one or other issue.
What generally follows is the Opposition forms an alternative government, or a caretaker Cabinet is put in place for a brief period and fresh elections are held. This possibility is for real. India has past experience in such matters. It is not clear as to how those who advocate elections only every five years will seek to tackle such a scenario.
If Parliament gets caught in a similar situation, and no party is able to form a government, it would necessitate a fresh parliamentary poll. It would be impractical for Parliament to wait for the assemblies to complete their five-year term and have the next polls to Lok Sabha. Nor can all the assemblies be dissolved so as to have a fresh round of general elections across the country.
There are umpteen such scenarios which would go to prove that a nationwide simultaneous poll would be highly impractical. Not only that, it may cripple the government in situations of emergency. What, however, bothers people such as Damodardass Modi is the constant progress reports that he is being forced to prepare.
Since he came to power at the Center in 2014, his rhetoric has been constantly challenged by the common citizen of this country. It is not from the Congress that he is running scared. That Gandhi family has lost all credibility and acceptability is a known reality. Modi has had to face terrible debacles right from Day One.
The Delhi elections of 2014 wiped out the Damodardass Modi charisma. Bihar was like a shadow of death for the BJP. Except an inconsequential state like Assam, all other major states like Tamil Nadu and Kerala have given a drubbing to the BJP. This has, most probably, deflated the ego trip of the present day leaders.
This demand for simultaneous elections can also prove negative for the people who would lose all remedial measures in the five-year period. They will have no options left to approve or disapprove the style of functioning of a particular set of people. Modi’s desire sounds very similar to the wish of the late Indira Gandhi and her cronies such as Vasant Sathe who wanted the presidential system to be implemented in India.
The present system, wherein there is flexibility, has its advantages and is rather the best way forward. If a scenario arises when a government at the Centre or states loses power, for one or other reason midway through its term, there are no hassles to hold fresh polls specific to that state, or parliament.
Under the present system, it is up to the Prime Minister to recommend fresh polls to parliament or a Chief Minister to similarly recommend for fresh polls to an Assembly in the event of a new situation arising. That could happen even midway through a government’s term, by way of seeking a fresh mandate to introduce some major changes or implement new programmes. This sort of a situation could also be necessitated in the event of defections or cross voting.
Periodic elections here and there will also help gauge public mood. If the ruling party at the Centre faces heavy reverses in a few successive state assembly polls during its five-year-term, that’s proof of its losing public support. This helps the government to tweak its unpopular policies, implement path corrections, and get the government going in a better way.
In Orissa, gram panchayat elections are slated for February 2017, and this would give the state government a chance to gauge its popularity as also public mood and effect, if need be, suitable changes to its policies. Straitjacketing elections in such a way that all elections in the country are held in one single go will thus be a disadvantage to governments to get to know public mood.
Elections to some assemblies have often been advanced in ways as to time it along with parliament polls. It has happened in Andhra Pradesh and now Telangana too, as the united assembly died its natural death in 2014.
Questions also arise as to how the Election Commission will cope with such a scenario, and how it would be able to put in place the manpower and security apparatus required for such a massive election exercise. It could easily lead to a whole lot of complications.
With Prime Minister Narendra Damodardass Modi floating the idea of simultaneous parliamentary and assembly polls across the nation in one go, feelings arise that the PM is probably looking only at the negative side of the present situation, and ignoring the positive side.
In advocating so, he gives the feeling that he has become averse to elections and the realities of the situation that he has created for himself. This, by extension, could also be interpreted to mean that he is not comfortable with democracy.
That would surely be a grim scenario.