One Nation, One Poll: An Attempt to Shift the Balance.

‘One Nation, One Election’ is the phrase that has gained great attention in Indian Political circles during the past fortnight. The debate over single elections throughout the country is not new and has continued since the time our constitution came to existence. Though Prime Minister Modi has led the campaign for it in past few years, but he is not the first to advocate single elections and in past decades too there were several politicians and scholars who wanted state and parliamentary elections to be conducted together. In fact the first three general elections were on the pattern of single elections and it was in 1967 for the last time that parliamentary and state legislative elections were conducted together.  

Election in some state or the other at regular intervals is a crucial determinant of actions of our lawmakers and their policies are generally guided by elections to follow and are inclined in the favour of states where elections are due. Indian federal setup has gone a lot of functional changes in 68 years of our republic and we have seen the impact of coalitions and regional political parties to their peak in past three decades. One elections throughout the country will certainly induce new aspects to Indian federalism were larger parties will become bigger players and smaller ones will be in a losing situation.

Importantly, voters today think regular elections as a tool for them to check people in power. Recently, the results of by-polls in three states are being seen as a mandate against so called divisive politics of BJP led government. One election throughout the country will mean all polls together every five years and according to the logics of those who support it; governments can function to their best and take decisions that are good for state and society instead of taking popular decisions and distributing freebies.

Single election will reduce the expenditure incurred and man-power used in the process and at the same time will result into larger voters’ turnout. It will certainly give scope for governments to decide freely and will make the process of decision making easier for people in power and will be time efficient by saving the times of people, government and machinery which are wasted in conducting elections at different times around the year.

But the biggest argument against the issue is that it will weaken the federal structure and democratic setup of the country. Centre will become stronger and states may lose their autonomous existence and may be limited to the status of being mere subordinate to the centre. There are more chances that the party which will gain majority in state assemblies will get more number of parliamentary seats from the state which doesn’t always happen when the two elections are not conducted together. In this case the regional voices will become less significant and they may feel deprived. Though this is good when it comes to ease of governance as the rule of same party at the two levels will result in increased co-operation. But at the same time there is a fear of party in power being despotic and anti-democratic. Making constitutional amendment will become a matter of play and the opposition will more likely become weak and insignificant at all the levels.

State and Parliamentary elections are fought on all different sorts of issues and when all these distinct set of issues will be put together the voter in all probability will get confused. In a country like India where the graph of literacy rate is rising but only on papers, the awareness of issues among the voters is doubted. Where a significant part of population hardly knows its real interests and is driven by false issues, it will indeed be a tough task for them to vote simultaneously for the two-tiers of the system. So, this will lead in improper representation.

In the system proposed, the party in power will become all powerful and it will hardly be answerable to people until next elections come. Non-answerability is fine if it is limited to not framing policies that promote partisan, appeasement vote bank politics. But when we look to its larger implications, the connect between voters and their representatives will be loosened and politicians may turn arrogant and despotic. There will hardly be any tool to check them and they may develop a feeling that no one can remove them for five years.

In case of hung assemblies and governments losing confidence, what will be the pattern of elections? Will the new government be elected for five years or for the time remaining till next scheduled election? In such cases it will promote unfair means in electoral politics, horse trading and defections.

An element of nationalism - following the popular trend in recent times - has been induced to this issue too. But on the contrary the elements that the unified election will bring may be even as dangerous as uprooting of democratic setup, either by law or by killing the spirit.

So, before the nation goes to accept the system of ‘ONE NATION, ONE POLL’, there are certain measures and reforms that need to be carried at the first step. There should be a provision of ‘Right to Recall’ their representatives for the voters to check them, provision of referendum in case of key constitutional amendments, increased role of judiciary and larger scope for judicial review. A proper and independent machinery to check the intention of politicians and look into the hidden implications of their actions.

Sanctity of the states as separate entities must be ensured by law and a body between state and centre can be a tool for that, alteration in the institution of Governor can also serve the purpose. Political education and awareness campaigns will be needed to carried out at various levels and degrees. The question that the whether government that will come to power is true representative of people will be answered only then and then only we can think of an honest and efficient system after unified elections !