Need consensus on synced polls

Simultaneous polls, commonly referred to as “one nation, one election”, is a persuasive idea since it is expected to reduce election expenses, for both the exchequer and political parties, as well as limit disruptions in governance that are inevitable due to the model code of conduct that is enforced ahead of the polling and the deployment of government officials to organise the elections. However, the proposal, which was backed by the high-level committee chaired by former president Ram Nath Kovind in March, will necessitate a major overhaul of the electoral system and significantly impact federal relations. Hence, it is necessary that the proposal, cleared by the Union Cabinet on Wednesday, when it accepted the Kovind committee’s recommendations, is carefully thought-through and a political consensus is evolved on the matter before the government gets started on its implementation.

Simultaneous elections were a normative aspect of the Indian polity until the 1960s — the only aberration in the 1950s was when the CPI-led government in Kerala was dismissed by the Centre in 1959. The weakening of the Congress and the rise of parties representing new class and caste aspirations in the 1960s saw fractured mandates, leading to the formation of unstable coalition governments. The cycle of synchronised Lok Sabha and assembly elections was thus broken. In subsequent years, powerful central governments began to misuse constitutional provisions (Article 356) to dismiss state governments run by Opposition parties by manipulating the office of the governor. This assault on the federal structure, most visible during Indira Gandhi’s tenure as prime minister and the Janata Party rule in the 1970s and 80s, was halted by the Bommai judgment of the Supreme Court in 1994, which limited the discretionary powers related to Article 356 and ended the President’s rule epidemic. The rise of regional parties and coalition politics after the 1980s also deepened the federal spirit that underlined the Bommai judgment, which explains why a return to simultaneous polls did not find traction in the political discourse. It was assumed that state politics operates in a realm different from that of national preoccupation, best left to state units, leaders and administrators to figure.

This layered and contested history explains the deep suspicion many political parties harbour about simultaneous elections. Hence, the Centre must converse with all stakeholders and address political, legal and administrative fault lines before proceeding with executive action.