BJP's demand for simultaneous elections must be seen through lens of 'parochial' political concerns of party

The President of India Ram Nath Kovind in his address to the Parliament this week advocated for simultaneous state and Centre elections near the fag end of his unexceptionable speech. More specifically, he remarked: "…frequent elections… adversely impact economy and development… not only impose a huge burden on human resources, but also impede…development…Therefore, a sustained debate is required on the subject of simultaneous elections…"

Only two weeks ago in an interview to a news channel , Prime Minister Narendra Modi strongly advocated for simultaneous elections presenting similar concerns, just like he has, often, in the past .

The Parliamentary Standing Committee on the Feasibility of Holding Simultaneous Elections to Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies; 170th Report of the Law Commission of India and a concept paper by the NITI Aayog have presented varied views on this issue previously.

The issue of simultaneous elections assumes huge significance, not the least in the face of two heads of the state advocating it within a fortnight of each other, rather in the fact that in today’s India unemployment is real , farmers are in acute distress and there has been a marked change in sentiment  (for the worse) for the ruling BJP in villages and small cities. The issue of holding simultaneous elections should thus be seen through the lens of parochial political concerns of the BJP rather than concerns of the kind that we have been led to believe would benefit the nation.

So what is it? Are simultaneous elections good for us? No one can deny that India is always almost in perpetual election mode and think of the money, time and effort that such an exercise would save. Or is the ruling party playing fast and loose with facts to further its own political aspirations? Is it intent on debasing the one thing that is the lifeblood of this already fractured democracy of ours - elections? As you may have already hazarded a guess from the title of this piece, holding simultaneous elections is deleterious to the beating heart of our democracy.

Here’s why our present system is good as it is:

Governance is not interrupted due to the perpetual election cycle

One of the primary arguments put forward in favour of holding simultaneous elections is that the Indian polity is in election mode throughout the year, and as a consequence governance is hampered due to the frequent imposition of the Model Code of Conduct (MCC). Though it is true that we see elections in anywhere between three-five states per year, the above contention fail the test of common sense.

Model Code of Conduct is enforced from the date of announcement of elections by the Election Commission of India and is in effect till the process of elections is completed. Except routine administrative tasks, no new projects or development works can be undertaken by the state during this period.

For instance, in 2015, MCC was imposed in Delhi a month prior to the state elections and in Bihar two months prior to the state election. And therein lies the catch.

MCC is only applicable in the state which is undergoing election. It has no consequence on other states or for that matter the governance of the rest of the country by the Centre. To argue that MCC stops work throughout the country is specious at best. On the contrary, governance would be well served if the prime minister were to not be busy making almost 20 speeches per month and addressing innumerable political rallies across India every month.

Continuous elections keep political parties in check

Elections to the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly took place in February-March of 2017. These elections came on the heels of demonetisation, when multiple reports ascertained the scheme was making its disastrous effects felt in the slow ruining of rural economy and shutting down of small and medium industrial units. Riding high on its public posturing of wiping out black money from the nation and schadenfreude, it was hence surprising when the BJP won an overwhelming majority in rural areas of Uttar Pradesh.

Only nine months later in Gujarat, a resurgent Congress gave the BJP a tough fight in the saffron party’s bastion. It can be argued that after nine 9 months, people experienced the adverse effects of demonetisation and new GST rules in all its glory and the government’s claim to wiping out black money had proven to be nothing more than an illusory will-o’-the-wisp .

This is the power and beauty of continuous elections — a tool for the ruled to keep the rulers in check and to reward or reprimand them based on an experience-based outlook.

Simultaneous elections will lead to poor voter choice

The important question to ask is if holding simultaneous elections will impact voter behaviour and hence the electoral outcomes. The answer is yes.

An analysis for all simultaneous , by virtue of co-incidence, state and Centre elections held since 1999 up till 2014, reveals that there is a 77 percent chance that the average voter will vote for the same party at both the Centre and the state, with the voter favouring the ruling party at the Centre.

On the contrary, the trend of choosing the same party has only increased with time, from 68 percent in 1999 to 77 percent in 2004 to 76 percent in 2009 and 86 percent in 2014. The voter is not discerning between voting for his state representative and national representative.

Simultaneous elections will transmogrify into ‘wave elections’

In the realm of political science, “wave elections” means an election where a party comes to power riding on an over-arching nation-wide dynamic which defies truisms. The 2014 Lok Sabha elections were wave elections in many ways for the BJP. However, since then, on account of the deepening fault-lines in India’s economy and Modi government’s abject inability to create jobs, the idea of simultaneous elections has been mooted aggressively by the prime minister recently.

For example, if simultaneous polls were to happen in 2019, elections in states like Bihar, Haryana, Jammu and Kashmir (where BJP is probably unsure of returning as the ruling) and other states like Delhi, West Bengal and Kerala, where the Opposition is strong — would be clubbed together.

Clearly, Modi wishes to use simultaneous elections to ride on an artificially created wave during that time to win not only the Lok Sabha elections but also influence the electoral outcomes, to his benefit, in multiple state elections too, with a single swing of the axe.

Money spent on elections is not money wasted

A common argument in favour of simultaneous elections is the savings that a joint exercise will accrue. The Lok Sabha elections in 2014 cost Rs 3,870 crore, while state elections, varying by the size of the electorate and topography, cost anywhere between Rs 200 crore - Rs 400 crore each. A preliminary estimate by the Election Commission, of the cost of holding elections for the Lok Sabha and all state Assemblies simultaneously, has been estimated to be Rs 4,500 crore.

There’s no doubt that holding simultaneous elections would definitely save a lot of money. But the talk of saving money should only arise when money is being wasted. And conducting elections in different states at different points of time to afford citizens the right to elect leaders is the hallmark of our democracy and not wastage of money. Saving money over protecting the very ethos of democracy betrays a fundamental misunderstanding and privileges pecuniary concerns over democratic principles. If saving public money is of concern, the government would do well to deal with leaky public welfare schemes, latent assets and poorly structured PSUs.

Simultaneous Elections are inimical to the spirit of democracy

Continuous elections are essential to the concept and virtues of federalism which argues that each state can operate as its own dominion with a central government serving as an authority to keep them all together and to resolve inter-state conflicts. The Constitution does not need amendment to hold simultaneous elections as the wording ‘unless sooner dissolved’ in Article 172(1) of the Indian Constitution makes it possible to dissolve an Assembly before the expiry of five years. However, it is against the basic tenets of federalism to dissolve an assembly like this as it has been elected for a period of five years.

If at all simultaneous elections were to happen, the Centre first needs to resolve some teething issues: develop political consensus unless it wants to conduct this exercise in a ramrod fashion and bring requisite legal laws and amendments, on the lines of the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act (2011) of United Kingdom, to protect against no-confidence motions and dissolution of the central government mid-way into its tenure.

Advancing the notion of simultaneous elections as a reform that the country is in dire need of, reeks of political concern rather than political will to bring in structural electoral reforms like a shift from First-Past-The-Post voting system to the more nuanced Mixed-Member-Proportional-Representation System. And therein lies the tragedy.

The author works with Aam Aadmi Party and the Delhi government on key issues. He tweets @pranavj142