One Nation, One Election (ONOE) is a political slogan. The agenda of the BJP is to have synchronised elections. What that means is to have elections to the Lok Sabha and state assemblies together.
But that has nothing to do with one nation. It is not as if since 1952, when there has been the absence of a law to hold synchronised elections, that we were not ‘one nation’.
‘One election’ is also a misnomer. As contemplated by the Ram Nath Kovind Committee, ‘one election’, at the beginning, will be synchronised, but there will be situations when elections will have to be held mid-stream.
In this case, there will be elections for the remaining term either in relation to the Lok Sabha or state assemblies depending on when the government falls. Therefore, the notion of ‘one election’ is yet another jumla. Both the slogan and motive are political.
Ram Nath Kovind, having held the presidential office, should never have consented to preside over this committee. Having represented the republic, he should not be seen implementing the political agenda of a party. More so because the terms of reference of the committee was to provide a roadmap for implementing the ONOE agenda and not give its opinion on whether such a massive change requiring 15 constitutional amendments was desirable.
In the event, synchronised elections are to be held in 2029. The term of 17 state assemblies will be truncated, for they would not have completed their respective five-year terms. This violates the basic structure of the Constitution. The reason is every government has a constitutional right to complete its term in office.
The rationale behind it is that political parties, through their manifestos, publicise their agenda for governance to persuade people to vote for them. Citizens have a right to know how the party in power has performed during its term. A depleted term will impact the credibility of parties.
The rationale given for simultaneous elections is that this will reduce expenditure. The 2019 Lok Sabha elections cost Rs 60,000 crore and in 2024, Rs 1,35,000 crore. It is perceived that with synchronised elections, there will be savings both for the public exchequer and parties.
The second reason given is that the resources saved will be better utilised by political parties and that frequent elections have resulted in a policy paralysis, which is not good for governance. Apart from this, there are reasons relating to administrative efficiency, internal security, reduction in populist measures, increase in voter turnout, perceived social harmony and political stability.
It is unthinkable for any political party in government to give expenditure and consequential savings for conducting elections as a justification for violating the basic structure of the Constitution. To me, this is a spurious and irrelevant reason for introducing 15 constitutional amendments.
There is no reason to believe that expenditure will be less because there could be frequent elections even after the introduction of synchronised elections, both in state assemblies and the Lok Sabha.
Some believe the savings on account of synchronised elections would be about Rs 5,000 crore. Whether these savings will be better utilised by political parties is debatable.
We have seen in the recent past how one party used the massive resources created through electoral bonds to build five-star party offices and for huge rallies and infrastructural arrangements during elections.
The most serious implication of this ill-thought-out proposal is that it will diminish democracy in several ways. First, every elected member of the Lok Sabha and the state assembly is aware that 50 percent of them are not likely to be re-elected.
Most of them would like to serve their entire term. In case of loss of confidence in the government, either at the centre or state, assuming this happens two or three years after the members are elected, none would want a re-election, given the massive expenditure for a truncated term. The natural inclination of such a member, even in the opposition ranks, would be that the government should not fall.
Besides, this would be a valid reason by the government in power to persuade the opposition not to risk an election. Such a constitutional scheme is per-se anti-democratic.
Second, what manifesto and policy framework can a party project when the balance term of the Lok Sabha or state assembly is 2-3 years? Its programmes can never see fruition in such a short time.
The constitution makers contemplated a five-year term, the underlying theme of elections in India, which, according to me, is part of the basic structure of the Constitution. Any attempt to tinker with that will be unconstitutional. In the event of the president’s rule being imposed in a state, say three or four years into its term, it will be difficult for people to be enthused about an election for the balance of one or two years. That makes no sense.
Freebies will still be distributed, whether the elections are synchronised or not. They can well be distributed mid-term. We have seen how the BJP has jettisoned governance and the development agenda, concentrating on ways to aggrandise and misuse power for political supremacy. They have been instrumental in destroying social harmony, even when no election is in sight. There is no reason to believe there will be an increased turnout or that synchronised elections will improve internal security.
The other serious consequence will be that local agendas and concerns within states will be blacked out by a national campaign through mainstream media. This directly impacts our federal structure.
One of the most beneficial aspects of having state elections at different times is that state-specific and local issues become matters of national debate and therefore are central to decision-making processes both at the centre and state levels. That benefit will have been lost through synchronised elections.
This ‘One Nation, One Election’ is just another thoughtless slogan, unrelated to the developmental concerns of a nation crying for change.
(Views are personal)
(Tweets @KapilSibal)
Kapil Sibal | Senior lawyer and member of Rajya Sabha