Since 2014, PM Modi has been a vociferous advocate of a unified national election, as reforming our electoral system is not only the need of the hour but would also serve as a befitting tribute to our Constitutional forefathers.
Democracy is not a static endpoint, but an ever-evolving journey shaped by societal changes, technological advancements, and global challenges. Its essential nature lies in continuous adaptation, reflecting the dynamic interplay between established institutions and emerging public needs. The age of a democracy is not the sole indicator of its strength or effectiveness. Instead, the true measure of a democratic system is in its ability to achieve an optimum level of governance that meets the needs and aspirations of its citizens. For India, the Constitution has been not just the guiding force for our democracy, but a pioneer in spearheading and empowering the governments to evolve with time and synchronize with the complexities and nature of the time.
Conducting simultaneous elections to the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies was the de facto norm in Independent India until the 1967 elections. Barring a few exceptions, the Congress Party won a unanimous mandate across all elections during the 1951-67 period, without any opposition or controversy surrounding the simultaneous conduct of elections. Although the Union Government retained its weightage, the states and their respective governments were still powerful in their own right and the simultaneous elections did not impact their autonomy in any manner. The 1967 elections had a profound impact on the political landscape of India, as the Congress Party was seen to have exhausted its mandate. Widespread disenchantment emerged and this period was marked by a continuous power struggle within the Congress leadership at all levels. The central leadership sought to moderate conflicts among state leaders to prevent dissidents from feeling isolated and in doing so, it supported dominant factions within the states to secure its own position at the national level.
The 1967 elections were pivotal, as opposition parties united to form anti-Congress fronts in several states, leading to a major setback for Congress. While it retained control of the Lok Sabha, Congress lost its majority in eight state assemblies. These elections marked the rise of short-lived coalition governments and increased political defections. Although Congress’s monopoly over state power was broken, no dominant party emerged, leaving a fragmented political landscape. Coalition governments were formed in all opposition ruled states, except in Tamil Nadu. In 1968, non-Congress governments in Haryana, Bihar, Punjab, and Uttar Pradesh were dismissed under Article 356, necessitating mid-term elections. The resulting coalitions, whether led by Congress or the opposition, struggled with unstable governance.
Political instability marked the period between the 1967 general elections and the end of 1970, as parties, including the Congress, frequently overthrew existing governments, changed alliances, and established new administrations. During this tumultuous phase, some states experienced periods of President’s Rule or were compelled to hold mid-term elections. The calling of elections in 1971 by Indira Gandhi marked a significant turning point, effectively sealing the fate of the concept of simultaneous polls, as it occurred just 15 months before the conclusion of her term. This election would also represent the first occasion in independent India that the Lok Sabha was dissolved before its full term had elapsed.
To combat the constant cycle of elections which inhibit the desired administration and governance, the government has come up with the idea of simultaneous elections to the Lok Sabha and the respective Vidhan Sabhas under the model of One Nation, One Election (ONOE). It is a visionary framework that has the potential to drastically alter India’s political environment rather than just being an administrative suggestion. The opponents of this model, which includes the Congress Party, term it as an attack on the federal character of our democracy, and argue that it would erode the relevance and role of the regional parties, diminish the accountability of the incumbent party as intervening state assembly elections act as informal mid-term elections and, overshadow the local issues, while emboldening the national ones like economy, national security and foreign policy. I, despite being an Independent Member of Parliament, hold a differing take on it.
One Nation, One Election is simply an initiative towards promoting socio-political stability, prioritizing civic-friendly governance, effective policy making and implementation over and above the constant loop of elections and the affiliated politics which currently dominate our headlines. The associated savings to the public exchequer should also be factored in, since the massive costs of conducting numerous elections would cumulatively reduce and would also free up more capital and time for more economically productive domains. The resulting increase in investor confidence and affiliated economic gains should be tempting enough for all political actors to support this initiative. It would also empower and incentivise the electorate to more actively engage in the electoral process by voting in greater numbers, since the voter fatigue which sets in due to frequent elections would be largely superseded. In no manner would it impact the federal structure of our democracy or the regional parties, as the electoral trends from states like Delhi and Odisha stand testament to how the voters distinguish their voting trends in Lok Sabha from the Vidhan Sabha.
Also, this wouldn’t be the first initiative of the incumbent establishment which comes with a much greater cause, but instead is simply a follow-up to the series of initiatives and reforms spread out across socio-economic and political domains. These include reserving one-third of the total number of seats in Lok Sabha and state legislative assemblies for women under the Women’s Reservation Bill, abrogating Article 370, outlawing the practice of Triple Talaq, streamlining multiple taxes into a unified system under the GST, enlarging the banking fabric via the PM-Jan Dhan Yojana, providing health insurance to the downtrodden section of the society under the Ayushman Bharat Yojana or training the youth with employable skills under the PM-Kaushal Vikas Yojana. A cohesion and amalgamation of all such initiatives and reforms would result in an India which is not only much more productive and economically sound, but one that spearheads the charge to revolutionise the way the citizenry lead their lives.
Since 2014, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has been a vociferous advocate of a unified national election, as reforming our electoral system is not only the need of the hour but would also serve as a befitting tribute to our Constitutional forefathers. Contrary to the current narrative labelling ONOE as a disruption, it’s simply a repetition of the initially practised tradition of our republic. Even though our nation’s economy has ballooned since 1991’s liberalisation, the need to capitalise the untapped potential considering the new wave of Industry 4.0, is more pressing than ever before. This would also streamline the course towards realising the vision of a Viksit Bharat by 2047 by accelerating economic growth and put us on par with the global behemoths. As a nation, at the dawn of Amrit Kaal, it is for us to evaluate whether we want a government in continuous action or a government in perpetual elections.
* Kartikeya Sharma is a member of the Rajya Sabha.