For The Love Of Reforms, India Needs To Get Rid Of Its Perpetual Election Mode

Beginning 2022, India will look forward to elections in Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Goa, Punjab, Manipur, and in the later part of the year, in Himachal Pradesh and Gujarat. In 2023, across the year, elections will be held in Karnataka, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Telangana, and Tripura.

In 2024, apart from the big National Election around May, elections will be held in Arunachal Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, Haryana, Maharashtra, Sikkim, and Odisha. Year 2025 will witness state elections in Bihar and Delhi. In 2026, it will be Assam, Kerala, West Bengal, Puducherry, and Tamil Nadu, and the cycle will continue. In-between, there would be states that may go to a re-election as well.

For a nation aspiring to become a $5 trillion economy by the end of this decade, and currently, a little more than halfway on that journey, some critical reforms are warranted in the coming years. The three farm laws, followed by the labour laws, along with the government's intent of privatisation in various sectors, was a testament to the need for urgent reforms.

The example of the three farm laws demonstrates how India’s perpetual election mode is beginning to dent its reform appetite, or can, in the longer run. Through an ordinance, the government ushered in the reforms in the middle of the first-wave last year (2020), and more than 15 months later, it repealed them. The vigour of reforms was diffused within a day as both the houses of the Parliament passed the bill to repeal the laws.

Punjab, with 13 seats in the Lok Sabha of the 540-odd weighed enough on the mind of the BJP government in the centre for the laws to be repealed that catered to the entire country. Then, there was the question of western UP, where the Yogi government finds itself dented because of the protests, merely months before the elections.

Clearly, the government had factored the elections in UP and Punjab, and they can hardly be blamed for it, for the government of the day needs to ensure its political sustainability before embarking on a policy drive. However, the question is of cost here.

More than the two states, it was the sector that currently employs close to 45-50 per cent of the population directly and indirectly, and has a contribution of 16-18 per cent in the GDP, and yet the liberalisation of it was sacrificed at the altar of elections.

The politics, since 2014, has changed as well. Contrary to the coalition governments of the past, this government in the centre, with a well-earned majority, is well within its constitutional rights to usher in ordinances or use its strength in both the houses of Parliament to get the reforms going. Against the nightmare-like policymaking and reforming nature of the UPA era, there is the Modi-led government with relatively greater clarity and vision.

The consistent weakening of the Congress since 2014 has eliminated opposition in the centre that can be an umbrella for even 200 Lok Sabha MPs, thus giving the regional parties more stature.

Employing the services of the Sinister Six, that is, the likes of Tikait and other street forces, the likes of Kejriwal and other socialist parties furthering a narrative against wealth creation, capitalism, and other progressive reforms, the activists and pseudo-intellectuals as was the case with Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), the communal forces operating in several states, the teaser of which was seen in Bengal after the election results, Big Tech, and the judiciary; many regional parties are now looking to stitch together an alliance to challenge the BJP in the centre and derail its reform bandwagon.

Thus, the government's biggest challenger, as evident since late 2019, is now on the streets, and not in the Parliament.

In this scenario, what happens to the other difficult reforms?

How does the government in the centre, even with a rightfully earned brute majority, get out of this infinite loop of elections it is stuck in to carry out the difficult reforms relating to population control, uniform civil code, temple management, taxing of farmers, labour unions, infrastructure and land acquisition, privatisation of various sectors, national register of citizens, and so forth? Where does the government find that ideal window of opportunity to get done with reforms without having to worry about street veto and protests, or state assembly elections?

Unfortunately, there is no such significant window, and the Prime Minister himself is not alien to this fact. For a few years now, Modi has been pitching for the discontinued practice of one-nation-one election, that is, holding elections for the Parliament and all state assemblies simultaneously, to be brought back. Until 1967, simultaneous elections were the norm in India, before a series of dissolutions in the states and centre between 1968-1971 disrupted this cycle.

However, one-nation-one-election is not even a remote possibility, for even with the cost and administrative benefits, the regional parties will find themselves on the backfoot and employ all their might to protest against it. If India were under a two-party system, as is the case in the United States of America, this idea would be employable.

Getting the regional parties to agree to the Lok Sabha delimitation would be a herculean task in itself, and therefore, this whole idea of one-nation-one-election is a long, nearly impossible shot. So, what’s the next best option?

One-nation-two or three-elections, perhaps?

Assuming 2024 as the national election year, can a proposal be made for all states going to elections between May 2024 and December 2026 to conduct polls along with the national elections of 2024. For the states going to polls between January 2027 and May 2029, the elections can be held around January-February 2027. Thus, the election cycle can be separated by 30-months, leaving the governments with more time to focus on reforms and administration and not rolling out freebies or repealing laws that cost the tax-payer.

There is also an alternative of having three election cycles, each with a gap of 20-months, and that could be the ideal spot to begin. Even with a 20-months gap, the governments will have a year or more of administrative and reform window before going all out in election mode. Ideally, it should be 30-months, but to smoothen the transition from the current perpetual election mode, 20-months is an option worth considering.

However, two aspects must be considered to safeguard the spirit of federalism and to ensure the government in the centre does not enjoy an undue advantage.

One, irrespective of the number of elections, two or three, the population of the total number of states must be equal. That is, if the first election for states is being held in May 2024 and the second in January 2027, the population of the states voting in May 2024 must be equal to the population of states voting in January 2027.

Two, the total number of Lok Sabha seats of the respective states must be approximately the same.

The whole idea would be hard sell, even if it came from Modi, and would warrant support from some progressive regional parties. However, in the next 25 years, more focus will be needed on reforms, law and order, and administration, especially as the economy grows from $5 trillion to $10 trillion by the end of the 2030s.

Elections are essential to any democracy, but reforms are essential to growth, and it is high time we stop sacrificing the latter at the cost of our economy. Sadly, we are voting far more than we are growing.