One Nation, One Election

One Nation, One Election. ONOE. It can be evaluated from two different angles: (1) how it would work, and (2) whether it is a good/bad idea. Let us look at both.

~~

 

The “how it could work” question raises several questions from an implementation perspective only (not from a desirablity/undesirability angle).

 

One, since both state and national legislatures are elected for 5 years, how can they be made to synchronize? Would we need to cut short some and extend others so that the next cycle synchronizes? The answer to that lies in constitutional amendments for exactly that purpose (extend and cut short so they get synchronized to get the new system started).

 

Two, such changes require agreement not just in parliament but also from the majority of states. In any political environment, the probability of getting any such consensus across states is remote, at the best of times.

 

Three, even if such a change could be made, what happens if a state or national government falls mid-term and no new government can be formed? Wouldn’t the system slip back into unsynchronized election cycles again? The (theoretical) answer to that lies in introducing new measures. (a) No-confidence measures must simultaneously have a confidence motion in favour of the new government. (b) If that proves impossible, then the President (or governor) will rule for the remainder of the term. (c) If that results in too-long a period of President’s rule, then a mid-term election will be held, but the new house’s term would be shorter. Adjusted such that the expiry date coincides with the next cycle of ONOE.

~~

 

The other aspect is whether it is desirable or not question.

 

One, the election model code of conduct thus gets activated twice for each state, once each for the national and state election cycles. During this election model code period, many development projects cannot move forward which hurts state development. That is true, but the real question is how much time is lost? The time lost is small, 2 + 2 = 4 months in a 5 year cycle. Are we to believe that these 4 months are the biggest reason why our state and national governments can’t do great things? This hardly qualifies as a good reason.

 

Two, separate state and national election cycles cost a lot more than a single combined cycle. This is a valid reason.

 

Three, separate state and national election cycles put repeated burden on personnel from the Election Commission, and security forces. ONOE would reduce that. This argument too makes sense.

 

Four, others argue that there is a high correlation of wins for national parties when simultaneous elections are held for state and the Lok Sabha. In other words, ONOE thus favours national parties over regional parties (That’s national parties in general, not just the party in power at the center). Some argue that regional parties are what keeps our nation federal instead of getting too centralized. I am not sure that is a relevant argument – it is not as if, in general, regional parties govern states better than national parties. Some states fare better with regional parties, others don’t.

~~

 

My take is that are some good reasons to consider ONOE. But they are definitely not overwhelming reasons. If you want to make a massive structural change, the reasons need to be far stronger and the likely benefits much larger than this. But I guess we needn’t worry too much on ONOE ever seeing light of day – as I said above, the “how” part looks impractical and unimplementable on multiple fronts.