The idea of one nation, one election seems irresistible given its merits but needs detailed groundwork still
Simultaneous polls, given the nature of logistic and legal complexities, have been put on the backburner for a while although the ruling BJP was hoping that pushing them aggressively for the 2019 elections could perhaps ensure a centrist surge in verdicts of States where new Assemblies are due. Which is why BJP president Amit Shah wrote to the law Commission but fact of the matter is changing an electoral system will require a substantive number of Constitutional amendments to the Representation of People’s Act 1951, the anti-defection law and others relating to rules of procedure. All of these changes need a certain incubation period and time is just too short, even assuming all parties agree to the idea. Besides, the Election Commission, which is trying hard to meet deadlines for provisioning EVMs and VVPAT machines for poll-bound States and general elections, has ruled out the possibility of taking on an extra load. Such machines too cannot be a sweat shop exercise as they need to be highly accurate and zero-error.
The debate on “one nation, one poll” has been an ongoing one and, on the face of it, the favourable aspects do attract some traction, chief among them the streamlining of costs and apparatus of conducting the election itself and stemming the prospect of policy paralysis. The argument is that with States in India’s federal structure going to polls at varied points of time within the Union Government’s mandated period of governance, no visionary or decisive steps can be taken or implemented as they would be subservient to electoral politics, which in this country tends to be overtly populist in nature. Besides, it would rid us from being in a continuous poll mode and go in for a performance mode. But it is in the subtext of the Westminster system we have adopted that questions arise about whether a unitary system works best for our federal structure. And in the current political context, whether it threatens the very idea of regionalism itself, considering that in a single election, national issues tend to take centrestage and drown out or at least blur pertinent issues of localised interest, something that regional parties are usually in better command of and base their political relevance and bargaining chips on. Although many argue that the Indian voter is evolved enough to make a distinction between the larger national interest and those of his periphery, there is always a possibility that the overarching aura of the former could swamp the judgment call of the voter at the state level, if the prevailing party seeking mandate happens to be of a centrist party. In this case, with most states with the BJP, the party was hoping such a move would help it make good in states where there is a distinct anti-incumbency. Besides, such a move does not factor in mid-term situations where the state government may choose to dissolve itself or fall because of a loss of majority. Would the Governor then not call fresh elections or hold on to a moribund Assembly till the dates of the next round of general elections are announcedij That would go against the grain of democracy and lead to surreptitious absolutist control of federal polity. As it is, though we call ourselves a federal state, in reality we are a more centralised union of states. The “One nation, one election” formula would further strengthen this idea and, therefore, needs very careful deliberation.