Oh no to ONOE but we do need electoral reform

The Cabinet has approved the One Nation One Election (ONOE) proposal of the Kovind Committee, aiming at simultaneous election every five years at the national, state and local levels. This will require constitutional changes for which BJP and allies are currently well short of the two-thirds majority required in the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha. Home minister Amit Shah declares that, hurdles regardless, ONOE will become a reality during the third term of Narendra Modi.Opposition parties are up in arms, saying they will never allow this to happen. One suspects the BJP will fail to cobble together the required super-majorities in either House. In that case, this will end up as sound and fury signifying nothing. So, the country will continue to be in constant election-fighting phase, with either national or state elections every few months. That is far from ideal, but democracy is a noisy business not easily tailored to produce neat results. In the past, BJP has created majorities that did not exist to begin with. But the reset in the political landscape after the general election results, which might be followed by setbacks in the coming Maharashtra and Haryana state elections, means the wind is no longer in its sails. Opposition, on the other hand, has been rejuvenated by the general election, and will fight the proposal tooth and nail.Both sides have formal positions that hide the underlying political reality. BJP says the current system, with some election or another every few months, is bad for economic growth and good governance. Since the model code of conduct prohibits significant new decisions in the run-up to an election, constant elections stymie quick decision-making and rapid implementation. medium113479763Economic growth and job creation are constantly put on hold instead of going full steam ahead. Populist giveaways become the focus of many incumbents rather than good governance. Enormous sums have to be constantly found to fight ever more elections. Most election money has always been black money, an unfortunate trend that will intensify after the Supreme Court’s striking down of the law on electoral bonds.There is merit in these arguments. But, of course, the bigger motivation for the BJP favouring ONOE is politics. Modi strides like a colossus over the political scene even after the setback in the recent general election. He is far more popular than his party. If all elections are simultaneous, Modi’s popularity at the national level is likely to rub off on BJP’s performance in state and local elections. This, more than considerations of good governance, explains why the BJP is so keen on ONOE.Opposition parties led by Congress are dead against simultaneous elections for the same reason. They fear it will cost them a lot of seats as long as Modi is at the helm. But that is so self-serving an argument that the Opposition would rather not highlight this. mediumhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9wRiTWvlQoInstead, it raises various issues of dubious merit such as the argument that simultaneous elections are against the spirit of a federal India. However, all elections were simultaneous from Independence until 1967, when defections, the collapse of state govts and frequent midterm elections ushered in a new era. Having pioneered simultaneous elections for two decades after Independence, it takes some gall for the Congress to claim today that such an arrangement will mean the death of federalism, democracy, decentralisation, and other assorted freedoms.A stronger argument might be that if decision making and implementation are seriously affected by constant elections, how is India’s GDP growth the strongest ever, earning plaudits from the World Bank, IMF, and global investment analysts? Why try to fix something that ain’t broke? The counter argument is that India could do even better if freed from constant elections. If growth increases by just 0.2% per year, that will translate into large gains in the long run because of the power of compounding. To get the best of both worlds, India should opt for not one but two sets of elections every five years. National and local elections should be held simultaneously every five years. State polls should then be held at the midpoint of national elections. Any collapse of a govt should mean fresh elections only for the remainder of fixed five-year terms. The US system has some similarity to this. US congressional elections are held halfway between presidential elections. A gap of four or five years between elections is too long, and robs voters of the opportunity of expressing displeasure more regularly. We do need a change. But let it be One Nation, Two Elections.