The recent report of the Ram Nath Kovind panel on simultaneous elections is praiseworthy on several counts. First, the committee was able to deliberate on this complex issue in great detail and with extensive consultations within a relatively short period of time. Second, there has been overwhelming support from political parties with 32 parties supporting it and 15 against it. Third, by separating Parliament and state assembly elections (which are conducted by the Election Commission of India, or ECI) from local body elections (which are conducted by state election commissions) from a literal definition of only one nationwide election at the same time for Parliament, the state assemblies as well as the local bodies across all states, the committee has deftly simplified the issue and kept it from becoming far more unwieldy. Fourth, the committee has crafted its recommendations in such a way that implementation would require a much lower number of amendments to the Constitution than what was widely discussed. Fifth, by recommending fresh elections in the event of a hung house or no-confidence motion instead of suggesting the formation of alternative governments with the same set of legislators, the committee has displayed pragmatism and sagacity. The committee’s report is largely in line with the suggestions given in this regard earlier by the ECI, the Constitution Review Committee as well the Law Commissions.
The various advantages of “one nation, one election” such as focused governance, continuity in policy decisions, removal of policy paralysis, reduced cost of elections, one electoral roll, reduced deployment of security forces, end of horse trading, and improved State finances are well accepted.
Some amendments to the Constitution recommended by the committee require the approval of the states in addition to that of Parliament. While there could be further debate if amendments to Article 172 pertaining to election to state assemblies would not require ratification by the states, there is no gainsaying that this step would require tremendous persuasion and perseverance by the Government of India to build consensus with the states, almost on similar lines and with similar rigour and intensity as was displayed during the adoption of GST. States or political parties that are opposed to simultaneous elections have not given any strong ideological argument against such a move except that it might lead to over-centralisation and drowning out state-specific issues during such simultaneous elections, thus weakening the federal polity of the country. However, the recommendation of the committee to have elections in two phases, one for Parliament and state assemblies and the other for the panchayat institutions, partly takes care of this problem. Also, past simultaneous elections in some states along with parliamentary elections have shown that voters’ intelligence and sagacity cannot be under-emphasised. However, there could be an argument that if the state elections can also be shifted to be held along with the local bodies’ elections, many of the concerns of the political parties who have objected to this move on grounds of state-specific issues getting subsumed under national issues, could actually be allayed. But, in this case, the ECI would have to coordinate with the state election commissions.
Since the committee has recommended fresh elections for the unexpired period in case of a hung Parliament or a no-confidence motion, a question that arises is what happens if different state governments collapse mid-way at different points of time while there is no such situation at the parliamentary level. Would elections be held again in every such state or would Union rule be imposed till the next Parliament election becomes due? There is also the question as to whether bypolls arising out of the death or resignation of a legislator shall be staggered to be held along with simultaneous elections to Parliament/assembly or would be held immediately if the duration of vacancy arising out of the gap between the death or resignation and the next simultaneous election is going to be long. The need for continuing with Article 356 in the Constitution, given that this provision, after 1967, was largely responsible for creating the unwelcome situation of multiple elections in a year, requires further examination. Lastly, election to cooperative bodies, which was also covered under the terms of reference of the committee, poses a separate challenge if it is also to be synchronised with the local body polls as both these elections are conducted by separate and independent constitutional/statutory authorities.
So far, in the debate on simultaneous elections, amending the Constitution and relevant legislation has been the focal point. Deliberations on whether the process of elections itself can be improved by compressing the election period by changing the mechanism of holding elections and innovating with regards to the enforcement of the model code of conduct (MCC) — all done through the use of technology and modern methods — so that polls are less disruptive for governance, have received scant attention. To illustrate, some campaigning can be shifted to online only rather than in-person, thereby requiring less deployment of supervisory personnel.
The way forward lies in building consensus for investing in infrastructure and technology, which could take care of a number of nagging issues that would remain even if the Kovind Committee recommendations are implemented.
Amar Patnaik is a BJD member, Rajya Sabha. The views expressed are personal
Political consensus key to simultaneous polls
14
0
03.04.2024
The recent report of the Ram Nath Kovind panel on simultaneous elections is praiseworthy on several counts. First, the committee was able to deliberate on this complex issue in great detail and with extensive consultations within a relatively short period of time. Second, there has been overwhelming support from political parties with 32 parties supporting it and 15 against it. Third, by separating Parliament and state assembly elections (which are conducted by the Election Commission of India, or ECI) from local body elections (which are conducted by state election commissions) from a literal definition of only one nationwide election at the same time for Parliament, the state assemblies as well as the local bodies across all states, the committee has deftly simplified the issue and kept it from becoming far more unwieldy. Fourth, the committee has crafted its recommendations in such a way that implementation would require a much lower number of amendments to the Constitution than what was widely discussed. Fifth, by recommending fresh elections in the event of a hung house or no-confidence motion instead of suggesting the formation of alternative governments with the same set of legislators, the committee has displayed pragmatism and sagacity. The committee’s report is largely in line with the suggestions given in this regard earlier by the ECI, the Constitution Review Committee as well the........
© hindustantimes
visit website
login
who are we?
contact us
qosheapp
Toi Staff
Gideon Levy
Belen Fernandez
Rami G Khouri
Mort Laitner
Rachel Marsden
Bradley Blankenship
Michael Kwet
