Simultaneous polls not feasible

CP Bhambhri
Professor Emeritus, Centre for Political Studies, JNU   

After  the idea of 'simultaneous' elections was mentioned in the address to Parliament by the President, the Election Commission of India in a note to the Ministry of Law on February 4 expressed its readiness to hold 'simultaneous' elections at the Centre and in 29 states and seven Union Territories. It has made some proposals for the implementation of such a policy:

1 An additional financial allocation of Rs 2,000 crore only for expenditure on EVMs/VVPATS. 

2 Amendment of Articles 83, 172 and 174 of the Constitution which provide for five-year term of the elected representative assemblies with a 'provision' that they can be 'dissolved' before completing their term. 

3 Amendment of Article 356, which provides for the imposition of Presidential rule in a state on the basis of 'breakdown of the Constitutional' system of governance.

4 A vote of no confidence against the ruling party or coalition of parties should include a provision for the name of an alternative leader and party which would replace the 'defeated party-in-government'.

Why are polls held so frequently?

Imposition of presidential rule: The first main reason for the holding of frequent elections for different state assemblies and union territories is the imposition of presidential rule under Article 356 of the Constitution where elected state assemblies have not been allowed to complete their full term of five years. Every political party or coalition of parties which has been in power at the Centre has 'dismissed' duly elected state assembly and its government during the last 70 years of democracy. There is no exception to this rule and in spite of the Bommai Case judgment by the Supreme Court, Article 356 continues to hang like a sword of Damocles over the head of state governments. 

Can the Modi government manage a consensus among all major parties for the deletion of the emergency provision in the Constitution, especially about the imposition of presidential rule and dissolution of elected state assemblies? The answer to is a big no. The present government has to create a national consensus for the amendment of the Constitution before it can implement the idea of 'simultaneous' elections. 

Fractured mandate: Lok Sabha elections have had to be frequently held because of 'fractured' mandate given by the voter which led to the formation of 'unstable' coalition governments, like that of former prime ministers VP Singh, Chandra Shekhar, HD Deve Gowda and Inder Kumar Gujral. Can anyone ensure that in a multi-polar, multi-party political system as that of India, the voters' verdict shall not be fractured? Can anyone ensure that the Central government will not be ruled by 'unstable' multi-party coalition governments? Has the era of coalition governments at the Centre come to an end? 

India’s federal democracy  unique 

Awakened voter: It should not be forgotten that India's parliamentary federal democracy has a certain uniqueness of its own and models of stable western democracies — whether a parliamentary democracy like that of the UK or the presidential federal system of the USA — are not applicable to the Indian situation. The functioning of the democratic process of 70 years has led to an awakening among people: Indian voters' participation is very high during the elections. The voter has learnt to teach a lesson to political leaders and rejection of parties during elections has become a 'norm'. This is one part of the story. 

Caste affiliations: The other part is that voter's loyalty is fragmented along caste, sub-caste and other group affiliations. The impact of multiple and diverse 'group affiliations' has been felt on parties which have fragmented and proliferated and the so-called all-India parties have become 'dependent' on multiple regional and sub-regional, caste and sub-caste based parties and groups. In such a situation of fragmentation and shifting loyalties, it is difficult to suggest that a party or parties in coalition will complete their full term of five years in government, either at the Centre or the 29 states and seven Union Territories. 

No guarantee of 5 years of rule

This is the reality of Indian politics and multi-party system which cannot be ignored by those who are thinking about 'simultaneous' elections because the premise, underlying 'simultaneity' of elections is that a party or coalition of parties will complete full five years term in government. A party or coalition of parties may complete full five years term of its election to the Lok Sabha. However, this may not happen in one or many states. Elections will have to be held if a state government or a government at the Centre collapses under the weight of its own contradictions without completing five years’ term in power.

The upshot of the above narrative is that parliamentary federal system of democracy has a uniqueness of its own and it should be kept in mind before the architecture of the electoral calendar for simultaneous elections is created to deal with the problem of the frequency of elections. 

The idea of 'simultaneous' elections seems to be a 'non-starter' because consensus among parties is difficult, especially at the present when the old calendar of elections for state assemblies during 2018, especially for Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Karnataka, or North-Eastern states, cannot be interrupted. Opposition parties will never agree to stop the process of elections in 2018 for these state assemblies. So, the suggestion of a ‘one national calendar’ for all-India elections is quite difficult because in a federation of 29 states and seven union territories, unexpected and unforeseen political developments may create a situation for mid-term polls.

Social dialectics of politics is at work in India and any legal interventions to deal with the new situation should be undertaken with great care. Hence, the time is not ripe for the implementation of the suggestion of 'simultaneous' elections.

German model not applicable to India

The German model has been suggested where vote of no-confidence is not admitted unless an alternative leader and party which is in a position to form the government is in place of a defeated party-in-government at the floor of the house of parliament. This is not applicable to India because Germany has a few parties but India has numerous other parties. How can any new leader be elected or nominated to replace the present leader against whom the vote of no-confidence is moved because alliances are made only after the present coalition-in-government is ousted from office?