Home arrow Archives arrow Open Forum arrow Open Forum-2015 arrow Simultaneous Elections: REMEDY WORSE THAN DISEASE, By Dr S Saraswathi, 14 July, 2015
 
Home
News and Features
INFA Digest
Parliament Spotlight
Dossiers
Publications
Journalism Awards
Archives
RSS
 
 
 
 
 
 
Simultaneous Elections: REMEDY WORSE THAN DISEASE, By Dr S Saraswathi, 14 July, 2015 Print E-mail

Open Forum

New Delhi, 14 July 2015

Simultaneous Elections

REMEDY WORSE THAN DISEASE

By Dr S Saraswathi

(Former Director, ICSSR, New Delhi)

 

Imagine the country going in for simultaneous elections for Lok Sabha and State Assembly elections. Well, it appears that almost all political parties at the national level appear to be in favour of the idea. However, there are nagging doubts about the practicality of such an exercise in the present scenario.

 

The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice is reported to be mulling over the option. It has also sought the opinion of the intelligentsia for impartial views and of various stakeholders impacted by elections to legislative bodies.

 

Simultaneous elections are mooted as a way of drastically reducing the cost of elections for both governments and political parties, and the administrative burden of conducting this political event frequently on the Election Commission. But, a decision on this crucial issue cannot be taken on these considerations alone. Rather, it should be such as to strengthen our democracy.

 

The first election after Independence was naturally held simultaneously for Parliament and State Assemblies in 1952. The practice could be followed without any hitch  in three subsequent elections held in 1957, 1962, and 1967 due mostly to the fact that non-Congress parties (except Communists in some places) were not in a position to dislodge the Congress in the legislatures or in general elections.

 

Thereafter, emergence of regional parties in some States altered the political climate effectively and led to instability of elected State governments. It forced mid-term elections in many States thus delinking elections to Legislative Assemblies and the Lok Sabha.   

 

In 1971, two years after the split of the Congress as Congress (I) and Congress (O), Indira Gandhi gave the finishing touch to this electoral delinking by calling a snap poll for Parliament. Thereafter, simultaneous elections have become exceptions rather than the rule. As a result, the Election Commission is busy throughout the year conducting polls in some part of the country or other.

 

Recall, political instability and changes in allies and supporters led to loss of numbers for the ruling party/alliance leading to the dissolution of the Lok Sabha in 1980, 1991, 1998, and 1999 before its term. In 1971 and 1984, the then ruling Congress chose to dissolve the Lok Sabha and call for fresh elections one year prior to the scheduled time to reap the benefits of what it considered as “opportune time”.

 

Delinking of Parliament and Assembly elections has taken place on account of both national and State politics. So far, six Lok Sabhas elected in 1967, 1977, 1980, 1989, 1996, and 1998 have seen premature dissolution. Their life span ranged from four years to 13 months! Unfortunately, such political uncertainty lingers with the result that political aspirants seek permanency of their own tenure along with doubling of salary even when they vote for “hire and fire” policy for labour without any qualms.

 

On the other hand, synchronized election means fixed tenure of various legislative bodies and fixed election dates. Undoubtedly, it is a benefit for the elected members, whatever be the consequences to the citizens.

 

It may be cited that even the unitary state of England has chosen to hold general elections and local government elections on the same day since 1997. But, in practice, local elections are delayed if polls to European Parliament have to be held. Italy, Belgium, and Sweden are some countries that conduct general and local elections together. Federal governments which have adopted the Westminster model face the problem of multiple elections, but have not found a satisfactory solution.

 

In Canada, municipal elections are on fixed dates while provincial and federal elections take place at any time. The Canadian Prime Minister and provincial Premiers have a right to call elections at any time during their tenure of five years. This right could be used by them to prolong their stay in power by going to polls when their popularity is rated high.

 

This led to the rise of “fixed election date” movement a decade ago. It succeeded in introducing set election dates in eight out of 10 provinces. At the centre, the Fixed Election Date Act was adopted in 2007. However, it is not really followed in practice. 

 

Another federal constitution within the Commonwealth, Australia, has no legal provision to hold fixed date elections. In South Africa, national and provincial elections are held simultaneously. Municipal elections are not linked with these.

 

In India, the question of a fixed tenure has been discussed several times without arriving at any consensus. It has several dimensions – political, administrative, organizational, financial, and social. In 1999, the Law Commission recommended that the cycle of elections every year should be put an end to.

 

This is a typical case where an ideal is more easily projected without suggestions regarding implementing these. Alternative modus operandi acceptable to all stakeholders is not forthcoming. The starting point itself will become a contentious issue.

 

Under the Indian Constitution, an elected government at the Centre and the States may be defeated in the lower house on budget proposals and may be voted out of power. There is also provision for “no confidence” motion against elected governments both in the Lok Sabha and Assemblies which, if passed, will mean fresh elections known as “mid-term election”. It is a democratic instrument which will be affected if the concerned State or the country has to wait for the fixed date of election.

 

In the case of Proclamation of Emergency for breakdown of law and order or constitutional functioning in any State leading to President’s rule, fixed election date would mean a totally undemocratic situation. The concerned State will have to wait for the next election date and submit to Central rule in the interval. The practical consequences of these two situations are many and go against the spirit of democracy and the representative system.

 

Importantly, multi-party system has taken deep roots in India. State level and regional parties immensely concerned with local problems are as much national and patriotic as the national parties. Even some national parties lack a federal structure which is necessary for simultaneous elections to take up issues of predominantly local interest. 

 

People have also politically matured to some extent to be able to distinguish the issues in national and State elections. There are also instances when they have voted for different parties/alliances for Parliament and legislature. 

 

Any decision on this matter cannot be left to legislative bodies, political parties, Election Commission and the bureaucracy. The tendency to deal with this as a question of cost and administration must be resisted. It is a vital question having a bearing on the quality of democracy. 

 

Fixed tenure goes with consensual decisions, and/or constitution of the Executive to implement majority dictates without reference to individual party preferences. Parties become less important than the legislative body. There is no question of defeat in the legislature or losing confidence of the House. Such a model can work in a party-less democracy in which candidates are elected for their individual worth and not for their assets to win elections.

 

In sum, simultaneous election in the Indian context is a remedy worse than the disease it intends to cure. ---INFA

 

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)

< Previous   Next >
 
   
     
 
 
  Mambo powered by Best-IT