GOI, think through ONOE

If elections are festivals of democracy, then like most festivals they too should happen at fixed times. The excitement of Diwali, Durga Puja, or Christmas lies in their certainty. They take place annually, on or around the same dates, the build-up to which usually is a joyous concoction of family gatherings, new clothes and good food.The Cabinet resolution last week approving the proposal for ‘One Nation One Election’ (ONOE) — holding simultaneous elections for Union and all state govts once every five years — restores this festiveness, and, consequently, the significance of elections. Just like no one can be excited about a festival that comes around once every few weeks or months, excessively frequent elections are tiring for electors.Implementing ONOE would post logistical challenges no doubt. The estimated cost of the exercise in 2029 is ₹7,951cr. EC, in its submission to the Kovind panel, stressed the need for a “definite lead time” to manage the logistical demands, which include updating electoral rolls, procuring additional voting machines, and coordinating security forces.Higher turnouts | But studies make one thing clear — when elections are simultaneous, voter turnout is higher. A research paper by Csaba Nikolenyi that studied 260 elections in India between 1971 and 2004 demonstrated that the turnout on average was 9.94% higher when elections to the Union and states were held together. This means an additional 6cr voters if such elections were held today. This additional turnout would be a massive boost for democracy.Much of the scepticism about simultaneous elections is based on the view that it’ll benefit BJP, the predominant political force at the Centre. Studies bear out the fact that voters are more likely to vote for the same party at the Centre and the state when elections are held together. But which party is that? In a research paper covering 2,900 regional elections in Europe by Schakel and Jeffrey, the authors show that voters only vote in favour of national parties in simultaneous elections when there are no strong regional parties.The corollary to this inference is that in states where regional parties are strong, it provides an opportunity for them to compete nationally in a way they may not have been able to otherwise. Simply assuming that simultaneous elections will benefit BJP is either lazy commentary or political excuse-making.Federalism won’t be hit | Whichever way people ultimately vote, it is true that ONOE will be a marked change in India’s electoral landscape. This has led many to express the fear that it will upset the basic structure of Indian federalism. But this is not true empirically. It is not as if elections at different times promote federalism whereas a single election will impinge upon it.It is also not a credible legal claim. The Constitution says nothing about when elections should be held. This is because of the fundamental belief of the framers that all elections would by default be held simultaneously, as they were till 1967. Out-of-turn elections were an exception. Today, when the exception has swallowed the rule, it is disingenuous to claim the Constitution sanctions the exception.Regarding the proposal by the Kovind committee to shorten the term of any govt voted after a mid-term election to the remaining period of five years (rather than a fresh five years), there may be two views on its desirability. But what is good for the goose is good for the gander — since the same rule applies to Union and states, there is no question of Indian federalism being affected by it.Need for statesmanship | A valid criticism is on the logistics of implementation. The Kovind proposal states that exactly five years from the first sitting of the next Lok Sabha (currently scheduled for June-July 2029), all state legislatures and Parliament itself would stand dissolved. This is scheduled, as per current estimates, for June 2034. On that date, the legislatures of Karnataka and MP would have completed around 1 year, UP and Punjab 2 years, West Bengal and Tamil Nadu 3 years. This would represent a significant shortening of tenures of these elected govts. It is entirely legitimate for such states to berate the one-sidedness of the proposal.What ONOE needs is not political partisanship but statesmanship. The Cabinet was right in approving ONOE in principle. But it needs to show statesmanship in implementing it. Instead of expecting only the states to take a hit, it should walk the talk and dissolve the current Lok Sabha in 2028, a year before its expected completion. This automatically means that the tenure of 10 state legislatures would not have to be significantly shortened, since they too in the normal course vote in 2028.With Parliament making the first sacrifice, the remaining states would lose the moral high ground to claim the proposal discriminates against them. This give-and-take is likely to unlock the consensus necessary for ONOE to become a reality. Like in all good Indian festivals, GOI as the karta, must lead the way. Only then will the entire joint family of Indian democracy stop bickering and come out in their finery for the one festival that unites all Indians.The writer is research director, Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy. Views are personal.