Introduction:
The idea of simultaneous elections, often referred to as 'one-nation, one-election,' has been a topic of debate and discussion in India for several years. The concept revolves around holding elections for the Lok Sabha (national parliament), state assemblies, municipalities, and panchayats simultaneously, aiming to reduce the frequency of elections and the associated costs. In a recent conversation at the Hindustan Times Leadership Summit, former Chief Election Commissioner Navin Chawla and Milan Vaishnav from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace shed light on the intricacies and challenges of this ambitious proposal.
Complexity of Simultaneous Elections:
Navin Chawla, a seasoned authority on elections, emphasized that while simultaneous elections are not impossible, they are far from easy to implement. The challenges lie in the sheer scale of India's electoral machinery. To hold all elections concurrently, the country would need to increase the number of constituencies, hardware, and human resources dramatically. This includes district magistrates, returning officers, and the deployment of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) and Voter Verified Paper Audit Trails (VVPATs). Chawla's insights bring to light the logistical intricacies that make simultaneous elections a formidable task.
Financial Considerations:
Milan Vaishnav discussed the financial aspects of simultaneous elections, highlighting that the cost of conducting elections is divided into government expenses and party-candidate expenditures. While government expenditure is significant, with estimates of around ₹4,000 crore for general elections and ₹300 crore for state elections, it is relatively small compared to other government programs. However, the real financial challenge lies in the money spent by political parties and candidates. Even if elections were held simultaneously, there is no concrete evidence to suggest that this spending would decrease. Therefore, the cost-saving argument for simultaneous elections may not hold water.
Challenges in Maintaining a Level Playing Field:
Navin Chawla raised an essential point concerning the trust and fairness of elections. Parties often demand observers and central police forces to ensure the integrity of the process. Expanding simultaneous elections would create an enormous demand for these resources, potentially straining their availability and raising concerns about the fairness of the elections, especially for independent candidates.
Historical Context:
Milan Vaishnav touched upon the historical context of simultaneous elections in India, which were held more or less concurrently from 1952 to 1967. However, political developments and instability in certain states disrupted this pattern. Vaishnav emphasized that the essence of parliamentary government is that governments must continually enjoy the confidence of the house, and rigid timetables may not align with this principle.
Alternative Proposal:
Vaishnav mentioned an alternative proposal known as "one nation, two poll," which suggests holding elections in two phases, with certain states voting ahead or after the general elections. This approach attempts to address some of the complexities of simultaneous elections but still faces challenges in the event of government dissolutions or coalition breakdowns.
Conclusion:
The debate around simultaneous elections in India is far from settled. While it may seem like a cost-saving measure on the surface, the logistical, financial, and political challenges associated with implementing this concept are formidable. As discussions continue, policymakers and experts must carefully consider the practicality, fairness, and potential impact on India's vibrant democracy before moving forward with any significant changes in the electoral system.