Arghya Sengupta’s column – Centre should take initiative on its own in ‘One country one election’ | अर्घ्य सेनगुप्ता का कॉलम: ‘एक देश एक चुनाव’ में केंद्र ही अपनी ओर से पहल करे

Arghya Sengupta Founder and Research Fellow, Vidhi Center for Legal Policy

If elections are a festival of democracy then like most festivals they should also be held at a fixed time. The excitement of Diwali, Durga Puja or Christmas lies in their certainty. They occur every year, on or around the same date.

The Cabinet resolution approving the concept of ‘one country one election’ – that elections to the Central and all state governments be held simultaneously once in five years – puts forward this idea. Just as no one can get excited about the festivals that come every few months, similarly frequent elections also create fatigue for voters.

It is also clear from academic studies that when elections are held simultaneously, the voting percentage is higher. A paper studying 260 elections held between 1971 and 2004 showed that when Union and state elections were held simultaneously, voter turnout was, on average, 9.94% higher.

The perception behind the skepticism about simultaneous elections is that it will benefit the BJP, which is the dominant political force at the Centre. But studies do not confirm this.

In a paper by Shekel and Jeffrey covering 2900 regional elections in Europe, the authors show that voters tend to vote for national parties in simultaneous elections only when there are no strong regional parties. In states where regional parties are strong, this gives them an opportunity to compete at the national level. In such a situation, the system of one country, one election can also be a means for regional parties to achieve more national relevance.

Irrespective of how people vote, it is true that One Nation One Election is a remarkable change in India’s electoral landscape. Many people are fearing that this will affect the structure of federalism. The Constitution does not say anything about when elections should be held.

This is because the framers of the Constitution had a fundamental and clear belief that all elections would be held simultaneously, as was the case till 1967. Rotational elections were an exception. Today when the exception has swallowed the rule, it is not right to claim that the Constitution sanctions the exception. Constitutional silence cannot be considered a license.

There may be two views regarding the proposal by the Kovind Committee to reduce the tenure of any government elected after the mid-term elections by the remaining five years (instead of a new five years). This could lead to many more elections and a lot of expenditure. Since the same rule applies to the Center and the states, the question of its impact on federalism does not arise.

However, the concerns raised over the logistics challenges in its implementation are justified. The Kovind resolution merely says that exactly five years from the first sitting of the next Lok Sabha (currently scheduled for June-July 2029), all state assemblies and Parliaments will be dissolved.

According to current estimates, it is scheduled for June 2034. By that date, the assemblies of Karnataka and Madhya Pradesh will have completed approximately 1 year, those of UP and Punjab 2 years, and those of Bengal and Tamil Nadu 3 years. This shows a significant reduction in the tenure of these governments. In such a situation, if these states criticize this proposal then it is understandable. Approving One Country One Election was in principle the right decision of the Cabinet.

But the Center also needs to play a role in its implementation. Instead of expecting the states alone to bear the brunt, the Center should keep its word and dissolve the current Lok Sabha in 2028, a year ahead of schedule. This would mean that the tenure of the 10 state assemblies (which are due to expire at different times in 2028) would not have to be reduced significantly.

With Parliament making the first sacrifice and reducing its tenure to 4 years, states will lose the moral ground to claim that they have been discriminated against. There is also a possibility of a consensus being formed through this. Like all festivals, the government should take the lead. Only then will the joint family of Indian democracy stop bickering and everyone will come forward in full attire for this festival.

(These are the author’s own views)