By Sujit Bhar
One Nation One Election: this theory has been in the air since the Narendra Modi government took up office in 2014. When one sits to think about it, one finds that estimates not backed by careful analysis are bound to find immense sense in this theory, especially in the purported saving of time and money. One would assume that the exercise will allow the government to find more time for governance and less wasted on being in continuous poll mode. Any level of analysis would suggest that it may not be so.
The idea was put through the initial test in Parliament on December 17 and the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and its allies in the NDA had come out smelling of anything, but roses. Twenty of their legislators had stayed away, despite a possible three-line whip and they have all been asked to explain why they had done so. However, Opposition (Congress) leader Shashi Tharoor has said that he is sure the BJP will not be able to garner the requisite two-thirds majority needed to push through a constitutional amendment.
The question is whether this actually is a great idea. The move towards one nation one election will need way more than one amendment. The move is intricately linked to a large cluster of constitutional guarantees that the people of India are used to. These are guarantees that keep the federal structure of the country alive, successfully nurturing the democratic theory of alternate opinions.
In the Lok Sabha, there was a pretty brutal debate before two bills were put to the initial vote. One bill was a Constitution amendment bill and the other was an ordinary bill. The Opposition claims that these are an attack on the federal structure of the country. Congress leader Shashi Tharoor said after the initial voting rounds: “We (the Congress) are not the only ones that have opposed this bill. The vast majority of the opposition parties have opposed this bill and the grounds are very many, it is a violation of the federal structure of the Constitution. Why should a state government fall if the central government falls?
“Why should the timetable of one who enjoys the mandate of the people be truncated because of the timetable of another? It makes no sense. In a parliamentary system, you cannot have fixed terms. The reason that fixed terms ended in 1969 is because of the fact that we have in our country a parliamentary system… different Houses, different majorities, different coalitions, may rise and fall at different times,” he added. He also said: “My view is that this entire thing is a folly. In any case, the votes today have demonstrated that the BJP does not have the two-thirds majority required to pass a constitutional amendment.”
What are the logistics involved if this exercise was to bear fruit? In a country of over 900 million eligible voters across 28 states and eight Union territories, the Ram Nath Kovind (former president of India) committee’s recommendations (it was incorporated in a huge 18,626-page report) were based on expert assumptions that it could boost India’s GDP by up to 1.5 percent. The critics saw a darker picture in this, pointing out that if adopted the new system could concentrate power in the centre and weaken the states’ autonomy.
The Kovind committee report recommended that while general elections would be held together, local body elections should be held within 100 days. What happens if a government loses an election? According to the committee’s recommendation fresh polls would be held, but its tenure would last only until the next synchronised election.
This is not a new phenomenon in India, with simultaneous elections having been held from the first election in 1951 until 1967. That was when early dissolutions of state assemblies led to staggered polls. However, with the population of the country skyrocketing and with the ever growing complexities of administration as the economy grew, the cost of elections reached astronomical levels.
Since the argument of the growth of cost of elections is seemingly one of the primary motivations for such a move, one needs to look at the money part in a bit of detail. Centre for Media Studies, a New Delhi-based NGO, has calculated that India spent more than 600bn rupees ($7.07 billion) on the 2019 general elections, making it the world’s most expensive at the time. The cost has escalated way beyond that thereafter.
There are several critical components to the expenses of the Indian elections. The first is the use of electronic voting machines (EVM) and voter-verifiable paper audit trail (VVPAT) machines.
For simultaneous elections, the Election Commission of India (ECI) has to ensure that there are enough EVMs available. There should also be enough standby machines in case the existing ones show up to be faulty. All these have to be acquired and their software updated to current conditions. Conditions often vary wildly from one constituency to another. Even though elections are mostly held around the May-August loop, some areas of the country will be in temperatures in the negative zone, while others will be in the 50 degree-plus Celsius zone. Then there would be rain and flood-hit areas, plus other natural disasters which are becoming increasingly regular.
It was calculated by the NGO that for simultaneous elections Rs 92.84 billion would be needed to procure the two types of machines. One has to also remember that these machines would also have to be replaced every 15 years.
The cost of machines would also include the transportation of these machines, their secure storing and auditing. It would necessarily mean paying for the personnel required to handle these machines. They have to be trained, paid for, fed and housed for remote areas. The machines will not only need handlers, but also enough technical people at hand to do emergency repairs. They, too, will have to be paid for, and since voting will be simultaneous, they cannot be transported from one place to another.
With the cost, there will be a massive surge of expense in the security set up. The sheer number of security forces required would be mind boggling. For troubled areas, there would be a huge shortage of paramilitary forces, and recruiting more paramilitary personnel just for the elections would prove counter-productive.
Such a huge number of personnel—security forces, plus all the associated manpower needed—would create massive logistical issues. If the idea is to not move personnel large distances and avoid a logistical chaos, then the ECI/government has to ensure that such personnel would be always available at such venues, which is a logistical and budgetary nightmare.
In the current scenario, forces and trained personnel are maintained at optimum capacity and are moved around when and wherever necessary. The ECI/government has to decide if, just to save this occasional transportation and housing cost, it is wise to make huge recruitments of security personnel and election manpower on a permanent or semi-permanent basis. One has seen how the national census has been postponed after 2011, and that is done more by semi-trained people on a temporary basis.
Before moving on to the other challenges, one has to also remember that security personnel are required to keep peace around the country. With neighbouring states, such as Bangladesh, in flux, would it be wise for the state to keep massive contingents of paramilitary personnel busy for long periods—even if the elections are held simultaneously, the process of setting up such a Himalayan task will be time consuming—at election booths?
The very idea of simultaneous elections can become a reality only if formal changes or revisions to specific provisions (or articles) of the Constitution are made. Some of these changes would need ratification by at least half of India’s 28 state assemblies. At this point, while the BJP-led NDA may enjoy a simple majority in Parliament, it lacks the two-thirds majority needed for such amendments.
In its report, the Kovind committee said it studied models from countries such as South Africa, Sweden and Indonesia. However, one has to remember that India’s population and complexities are way larger than all these countries put together.
It may be pertinent to look into the changes needed for such a mammoth task. Even considering a modest look into the issue, one finds that there would be at least five articles of the Constitution and many acts that need to be amended. This was pointed out by Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah.
What are these changes? The act today says that elections to a House can be held anytime within six months preceding the date of the scheduled dissolution on completion of the five-year term. That term has to be realigned with the overall election calendar; hence a major overhaul of this act would be needed. One example stands out starkly. Polls were held together in 15 state assemblies in 2019. If these terms are to be realigned with the overall calendar, these assemblies need to be dissolved. That, going by the very federal structure of the country, would be preposterous.
According to the Opposition, altering these terms would violate the Constitution’s basic structure. Article 368 lays down the procedure for amendment of the Constitution. The only limitation of this power is that “Parliament cannot alter the basic structure of the Constitution.”
Then there are Articles 83(2) and 172(1) which set the maximum duration of the Lok Sabha and state assemblies, respectively. They state that assemblies shall continue for five years from the date of their first meeting “unless sooner dissolved.” Why the need for amendment? This is because it has to be ensured that the term of the reconstituted assembly (after the dissolution) is less than five years to compensate for the time in the run-up to the next simultaneous polls. This has been one recommendation of the Kovind committee.
Then there are provisions for Union territories, for which the report states that similar amendments would be required in Section 5 (Duration of Legislative Assembly) of the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi Act, 1991, for the Legislative Assembly of Delhi and Section 5 (Duration of Legislative Assembly) of the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963 for the Legislative Assembly of Puducherry. Also to be changed is Section 17 (Duration of Legislative Assembly) of the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019.
That brings one to the contentious Article 356, as well as Articles 85 and 174. Article 356 allows the centre to dismiss an elected state government and impose president’s rule. An amendment to this Article may pave the way to prevent the premature dissolution of the Houses and assemblies. This would prove a huge setback for the central dispensation for any region/state where it is not on power. The bad rep it would get for such instances would be immense.
There is also the case of Article 325. The report says “In order to have a Single Electoral Roll and Single Elector’s Photo Identity Card, an amendment shall be made to Article 325.” The report says that this amendment is expected to have an “overriding effect over Articles 243K and 243ZA”.
As per the document, this amendment will facilitate that the ECI should prepare the electoral roll “in consultation with” the state election commissions. This will substitute any electoral roll prepared earlier by either the Election Commission under Article 325 or the State Election Commissions under Article 243K and Article 243ZA.
This itself is such a huge endeavour that it would be a cash guzzler, as well as time consuming, considering it does not face a massive public backlash.
As if all the above were not enough, the country would have to foot the entire bill of an endeavour that the country today simply cannot afford. With joblessness on the rise, with prices at painful levels and with corporate functioning at great lows, except for a few top ones, this is an adventure the country does not need, not now at least.