CHENNAI: One of the first agendas taken up very keenly by the Narendra Modi-led government in its second term is simultaneous polls for both Lok Sabha and State Assemblies. The stated objectives are lofty: stability of governments and saving money spent on elections. But the Modi government has not addressed the genuine apprehensions about the far-reaching consequences the move could have. The most crucial among them is undermining of democracy at State levels and reducing the authority that State governments and the Chief Ministers are so far enjoying.
What if?
To understand this, one has to start with a basic question. If it’s decided that elections would happen only once in five years jointly for all the State Assemblies and the Lok Sabha, what happens when no party has secured a majority in a particular State Assembly? Or a State government loses majority in the middle of its tenure? Presently, the State would go for fresh elections and people will get a second chance to decide on the future of their State government. Under the scheme of simultaneous polls, the elections can’t happen for the next five years and hence, the voices of the people will be kept out.
There have not been adequate debates or clarifications from the Central government on such issues. One of the few documents that discusses them is the Law Commission’s working paper released in April 2018. One of the alternatives suggested by the Law Commission is dilution of the anti-defection law, a law that makes party hopping by MLAs and MPs illegal and results in their disqualification. The dilution of the anti-defection law is to enable a member of the house seek support of members of other parties, to help form a government. This means horse-trading of elected representatives, which is considered illegal and immoral, will get a status of sanctity.
Political observers, especially after the recent experiences in States like Goa, say that the party ruling at the Centre always has an advantage, merely because of its muscle power and can easily ‘buy’ the elected representatives from the opposition parties.
Another idea that has been proposed, is that every no-confidence motion against a ruling government must be accompanied by an alternative motion for forming a new government. This is to avoid dissolution of the houses and the prospect of fresh elections. However, what this means is that a party can remain in power even if it no longer enjoys the confidence of the majority of the members in the house, merely because there is no other party that is able to get support of majority of the members of the house.
Stability or responsibility?
VCK general secretary and member of Parliament, D Ravikumar quotes BR Ambedkar, the architect of the Indian Constitution, to explain how this is anti-Constitutional. “A democratic executive must satisfy two conditions — it must be a stable executive and secondly, it must be a responsible executive. Unfortunately, it has not been possible so far to devise a system which can ensure both in equal degree. You can have a system which can give you more stability but less responsibility or you can have a system which gives you more responsibility but less stability.”
Ravikumar says that Ambedkar, during the debates on the Constitution, had elaborated how the US system of Presidential government is tilted towards ensuring stability of the government. In contrast, the UK form of Parliamentary government is more tilted towards ensuring that the government is responsible. In choosing the UK form of parliamentary democracy, the Constitutional framers have clearly given importance to having a ‘responsible’ government rather than a ‘stable’ government. Hence, Ravikumar argues that to enforce simultaneous polls, merely to ensure stability of the governments, is unconstitutional. And the constitutional amendments required for it would tamper the basic structure of the Constitution.
The State’s status
Most of the political parties in Tamil Nadu are apprehensive that changes in the Constitution and Representation of People’s Act that are necessary to ensure simultaneous polls, would ultimately mean end of the status that the State governments and the Assemblies enjoy now.For example, the Law Commission’s working paper also mentions that in cases where no party is able to secure a majority in the State Assemblies, the governor rule is resorted to, as a final measure.
This merely means Central government directly taking over the administration of the State governments. Even if a State Assembly goes for mid-term elections because no political party is able to form a government, the term of the new regime will not be for full five years. It will be curtailed and the State Assembly will again face elections when the simultaneous polls are held across the country as per the five-year routine. The Law Commission also talks about “extending the terms” of the State Assemblies so that the elections for them are synchronised with that of the Lok Sabha. Hence, the current fixed five-year term enjoyed by the Chief Ministers would no longer be possible, indirectly reducing their status.
An impossibility?
Political analyst ‘Tharasu’ Shyam says because of such practical impossibilities, the idea of simultaneous polls is not possible, without tampering with the idea of democracy. He says, “Simultaneous elections are impossible for the simple reason that no one can decide the majority for a State government in the Assembly. Sometimes, hung Assemblies may happen - so, it all depends on how the people give their mandate. So, the Centre cannot force an idea that goes against the mandate of the people. Hence, simultaneous elections are impossible,” he says.
Law Minister CVe Shanmugam told TNIE that the AIADMK had, in principle, accepted the idea of holding simultaneous elections to Lok Sabha and State Assemblies because late leader J Jayalalithaa too had held the same view.”But before implementing it, there should be a consensus among all States on the practical problems that stand in the way of this transformation,” he said. Shanmugam said it is not clear what would happen in case of dissolution of an Assembly or Lok Sabha and what about the State Assembly that still has years left for its tenure? He said these issues must be discussed threadbare since they involve Constitutional amendments and a draft policy should be placed in public domain.
DMK farmers’ wing secretary KP Ramalingam, speaking to TNIE, wondered, “On many occasions in the past, the Lok Sabha did not last its full term. So, can we infer that on such occasions, all State governments too will be dissolved?”
Both Ramalingam and Ravikumar are of the view that the simultaneous polls are aimed at eliminating small political parties and taking the country towards a two-party system like in the US.
Ramalingam says, “In my personal view, Prime Minister Narendra Modi is trying to create a milestone in the constitutional history of India. This may lead to a Presidential form of government. Who knows whether Modi is preparing himself for becoming the first President of India under the Presidential form of government.”