Why does ‘One Nation, One Election’ violate parliamentary democracy? Understand the whole thing from the expert

New Delhi: On 17 December, after a heated debate and voting, two bills providing for simultaneous elections under the ‘one country, one election’ policy were introduced in the Lok Sabha. In an interview with TOI+ in September 2023, renowned political scientist Suhas Palshikar explained the problems with this proposal. he/she explained why he/she sees this as a major attempt to tamper with the Constitution. Read the big points of that interview.

Do you think it is time to go back to the system of holding ‘simultaneous elections’ as was done in the early 1960s?

Political scientist Suhas Palshikar said that in the 1960s, there was no pre-planned plan to hold simultaneous elections. As with all elections starting in 1951, this occurred coincidentally and there was consistency across states. Therefore, both the state legislatures and the Lok Sabha continued to serve their full five-year terms. As a result, so-called simultaneous elections were held in 1951, 1952, 1957, 1962, and finally 1967. he/she stressed that at this point in time there is no question of us going back to the 1960s. This is because politics is taking us away from the 1960s.

Without political consensus, constitutional amendments and legal changes are not helpful. Do you think such discussions will take place with all political parties?

Suhas Palshikar said that I do not know. As far as I remember, the Prime Minister had held only one meeting with opposition leaders long ago, which was inconclusive. And now I do not see any dialogue taking place between the government and other parties, simply because the committee formed by the government had only one member from the Congress party, who has decided not to participate in the proceedings. Therefore, a comprehensive discussion is not taking place. And in this situation, even constitutional amendment seems very difficult.

What do you have to say on the refusal of the leader of the Congress party in the Lok Sabha to become a member of the committee?

Suhas Palshikar said that he/she is not participating because he/she does not want to participate in it. Their official stance is that the terms of reference of this committee are rigged. This is because the topics for consideration of this committee are already decided. This committee will suggest ways in which elections can be conducted simultaneously. The committee is to advise whether a constitutional amendment would require the consent of half the states and other modalities, such as the ability of the Election Commission to conduct simultaneous elections.

In other words, from the terms of reference it seems that it is already decided that we should hold simultaneous elections. And now you tell us how to do it. This is the only order of this committee. And so it is quite natural that those who one country one election oppose the idea of ​​simultaneous elections, they would find it strange to sit on a committee recommending ways and means of holding simultaneous elections.

As a political science teacher and an intellectual, what is your stand on holding simultaneous elections?

Palshikar says that when any new policy or any new initiative is taken by the government, we should ask two questions. The first question is, is it possible? The second question is, does it violate any fundamental principle on which our political system is based? I won’t go into the question of feasibility right now, because once you decide something has to be done, you find ways to use it practically or implement it.

Palshikar further says that let’s come back to the second part. On the question whether the process of simultaneous elections, as is possible in our system, violates any fundamental principle, my answer is yes. This violates the principle of parliamentary democracy. Because in the proposal, you cannot hold simultaneous elections unless you change the entire process of no-confidence motion… which is the core of the parliamentary system. Therefore, this key means of the opposition to hold the government accountable has to be taken away. This is a violation.

The second violation is that it is unnecessarily linked to the life of the Lok Sabha. States have their own assemblies. And those assemblies have their own life of five years. They may or may not last those five years. And therefore, unnecessarily linking state elections with Lok Sabha elections, and saying that states will always have to remain with the Lok Sabha, violates the principle of federalism. For these two reasons I think this issue of holding simultaneous elections is very problematic in terms of constitutional principles.

The fear is that this will also increase the conflict of interests between the states and the central government. Do you also see any similar fear?

Suhas Palshikar said how can you fix a five-year period for all the assemblies at the same time, especially on its operational aspects. Suppose tomorrow the government falls in some state due to any reason, and we have examples of state governments falling since 1967.

However, the first state government fell in Kerala in 1958, so either you use Article 356, and the state government is dismissed, or the Chief Minister resigns, or the Chief Minister loses majority. If you consider any of these three scenarios, you will find that there will be no possibility of holding the next assembly elections by whatever deadline is set by the new proposal for holding simultaneous elections.

There is no empirical study to prove the benefits of holding simultaneous elections. Do you think this will have any impact on voter turnout? What about voter fatigue?

Palshikar said that yes, these are questions of feasibility. The only empirical evidence we have is from the 1950s and 1960s, when polls were new. And in any case, the voting percentage was only in the range of more or less 50 per cent. Only after this the voting percentage started increasing. However, research has shown that more voters turn out to vote in assembly elections than in Lok Sabha elections.

According to Suhas Palshikar, now this new method will mean that voters will have to vote simultaneously for the Lok Sabha as well as the Assembly. And we don’t know what effect this system will have. Also remember that at least some of the enthusiasts who are supporting this proposal are seeing that this is not just a state election, but a local [नागरिक निकाय] Elections are also being held on the same day. They think it is a very good thing to have all the elections on the same day. I don’t know where this idea of ​​holding all the elections on a single day came from.

Suhas Palshikar said imagine the voter fatigue that you have mentioned. This is not voter fatigue in which the voter has to go to the polls again and again. But voter fatigue occurs when the voter is given a bunch of ballots, or multiple electronic voting machines are placed in front of the voter. [ईवीएम] are kept. There will be three EVMs – one for the Lok Sabha, the second for the state and the third for local elections. The voter has to keep in mind that he/she wants to vote for Party X for this election, Party Y for that election and Party Z for the third election.

This is really going to be a tough task for the voters. Remembering the candidates, and then differentiating between Lok Sabha, Assembly, Local Body candidates and then voting correctly. My fear is that illegal votes will increase. This is number one. Another possibility is that there is always a tendency for you to press the same mark on all three machines due to fatigue and boredom. And hence, voters forget the difference between these three elections.

Do you think this is to keep the Election Commission under the control of the Central Government?

Suhas Palshikar said that this does not have a direct connection with the appointment of election commissioners, because in any case, the government would appoint the CEC by bypassing the Supreme Court decision. [मुख्य चुनाव आयुक्त] And is trying to appoint other commissioners. Whatever they want, the proposal they have presented shows that there will be majority in favor of the government. So, I don’t think it will have any direct impact on it.

However, now you have raised this question about the Election Commission, so I think there will be a lot of pressure on the Commission in terms of administrative burden. And the second thing, about which no one is commenting at the moment. If you hold local elections at the same time, then in a way it is being said that the constitutionally mandated state election commissions will be dissolved. They will have no role because one of the proposals that is under discussion is that they will prepare only one voter list, which will obviously be prepared by the Election Commission of India.

JDU leader KC Tyagi has called it an attack on federalism. Congress leader Mallikarjun Kharge has alleged that we are gradually moving towards dictatorship… do you agree?

According to political scientist Suhas Palshikar, however, the allegation of dictatorship is a big allegation. Although this can be discussed separately, I am not sure that this proposal will necessarily lead to dictatorship. But as I said, this would violate the constitutional order. This will destroy the parliamentary system. This would collapse federalism, to the extent that there would be too much centralization in the hands of the central government. Therefore, some scholars have pointed out that its main beneficiaries will be only the big or national parties.

Will the ‘One Nation, One Election’ system really help the government focus more on governance, as claimed by its proponents?

Political scientist Suhas Palshikar said that you can make any number of claims in support of a particular proposal. The question is, is there any serious investigation into those claims? There are two sides to this. One says that important political leaders spend a lot of time in election campaigning. The issue is why does this happen?

This happens because our big parties like Congress and BJP are highly dependent on the central leadership. If the parties are federal in structure, then for elections in Kerala, you do not need your national leaders to spend all 35 days campaigning. National leaders can come for a day or two, the main burden of campaigning should be with the state unit of that party. We have now reached the point where even local city elections require national leadership. This is a pathetic situation, but it has nothing to do with the fact that elections are held in different phases. This is a result of centralization of the party and too much dependence on the leadership.

Political scientist Suhas Palshikar said that the second part of the argument is that no policy decisions can be taken due to model code of conduct etc. Again, this is a ridiculous argument because if elections are being held in Kerala or Tamil Nadu, the government of Uttar Pradesh or Madhya Pradesh can rule the entire thing as per its wish. And as always, there are no stops and no obstacles in ruling.

And in any case, as citizens, we should always think why is it that political parties want to announce plans and programs and promises only on the eve of elections? They know that elections are going to be held in Rajasthan, say in November, then why all the good work is not done in July itself? Why wait till October? So, this reliance on last minute announcements is a political thing. And simultaneous elections will not bring any change in this.

Political scientist Suhas Palshikar said that if such simultaneous elections are held, police forces and reserve police forces will have to be deployed for two-and-a-half months. Therefore, for at least two-two and a half months, the entire administration will come to a standstill in the entire country at once. And so, the argument that this proposal would facilitate governance is problematic. Theoretically, in the end, this is problematic because if you are looking at governance or administrative convenience of government, you are saying that democracy and elections are an obstacle. And so, you are trying to get away from the choices and the competition. This complete disdain for politics is very bad for a democratic spirit.

How much do you believe that simultaneous elections will free us from political corruption?

Political scientist Suhas Palshikar said that this is not the case at all. Why should this reduce political corruption? Because of political corruption or excessive misuse of money during elections. This is the curse of our politics, which needs to be rectified by self-regulation by political parties and making strict laws regarding election expenditure and election funding. We don’t do this, no one talks about it.

The government is not even ready to consider that there should be no secrecy regarding electoral bonds. Therefore, this complete secrecy of election funding and political funding must end. Many organizations are working on this, but the government has not listened to them. And so, I think this argument is irrelevant. Because whatever corruption, whatever additional expenditure you have to incur, you will do it only at the time of elections, whether simultaneously or not.