One-Nation-One-Poll Is A Great Idea, But It May Be A Modi-Shah Red Herring

The idea of one-nation-one-poll is speculation wrapped in conjecture and encased in layers of political assumption. While there is little doubt that Prime Minister Narendra Modi believes in the idea (largely for the right reasons), there is equally little doubt that most opposition parties oppose the idea (largely for the wrong reasons).

The speculation got fuelled again yesterday (13 August) when a letter written by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) chief Amit Shah to the Law Commission supported the idea, even as another story was floated – quoting no sources – claiming that the BJP could easily hold 11 state assembly elections along with the Lok Sabha polls next year even without any change in the law.

The argument is that four states (Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Odisha and Sikkim will anyway hold elections along with the Lok Sabha); to this can be added four more states where elections are due later on in 2019 (Arunachal Pradesh, Haryana, Jharkhand, and Mizoram), and whose governments can presumably be requested to dissolve the assemblies earlier and hold polls in April-May); and lastly, there are three states which go to the polls this December (Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and Rajasthan), where the assumption is that the assemblies can be dissolved and President’s rule imposed before elections in mid-2019.

One wonders why Maharashtra and Jammu and Kashmir were not added to this list, which would make 13 states being able to hold polls simultaneously with the Lok Sabha. In Maharashtra, the BJP-Shiv Sena is in power, while in J&K, no government is possible and the Governor can at any time recommend assembly elections.

Perhaps the only logical point behind this assumption that 11 or 13 states can hold polls simultaneously in April-May 2019 is the political one – that the BJP would be better off in three states (MP, Chhattisgarh and Rajasthan) if they are clubbed with the national elections since the Modi factor can be brought into play. As standalone elections this December, the BJP could face an anti-incumbency wave in these states.

But beyond this, the logic of the BJP going for simultaneous elections in 11 states is not quite sound.

For three reasons.

One, it is not going to be possible for three states to be put under President’s rule without the Rajya Sabha passing it, and this cannot be taken for granted. In fact, the BJP, even assuming it loses MP, Chhattisgarh and Rajasthan, can well recover in the Lok Sabha, as the electorate has now learnt to differentiate between state and central issues. In Karnataka, a year after losing to the Congress in 2013, the BJP won a majority of the seats in the Lok Sabha elections. Elections to the Odisha, Telangana and Andhra Pradesh assemblies may well throw up the same divergent results.

Two, the move will be legally challenged at the level of high courts and Supreme Court, which means the BJP may well fail at the last hurdle even if it manages to convince the Rajya Sabha and the incumbent governments at several state assemblies to sign on the dotted line. This risk alone is enough to give the BJP enough reason to avoid a smack in the face from the courts.

A true and sensible law on simultaneous elections can be enacted only through a large measure of political consensus, and there is no getting away from the need for such a law. Without it, a state where a government falls soon after its term commences will be stuck without a popular government for years. This can be mitigated only if the law provides for an interim government that can rule with broad consensual support until the actual date of the polls.

The more sensible alternative is to have one-nation-two-polls, so that simultaneously elections are held every two-and-a-half years. If a state government falls, it can be ruled by a non-partisan leader for the remaining period until elections are held (which means a max of two-and-odd years of non-popular rule). The same law will have to apply to the Lok Sabha as well, for we cannot presume that governments at the Centre will always last their full terms. We know that the Morarji Desai, Charan Singh, Chandra Shekhar, V P Singh, Deve Gowda, I K Gujral and A B Vajpayee governments fell well within two years of formation.

The common justification for holding simultaneous polls is the one of costs and loss of governance, with model codes preventing elected governments from doing what they were elected to do.

But the real issue is not the model code (which can be eased by the Election Commission) or the cost of holding elections, but this moral hazard: when states and Centre are always in election mode, they will be constantly thinking of freebies or pandering to sections of the electorate all the time. It ruins chances of governments ever following stable and sane policies when it is always election-time.

We need simultaneous elections so that elected governments can actually use their full tenures productively to govern and think about the longer-term interests of state or country. Right now, that is not possible. Consider the kind of mindless populist schemes being thought up right now: reservations for ineligible castes and Muslims; more farm loan waivers and agricultural subsidies; more stoking of divisive issues of every kind, et al.

Those arguing for retaining the current system are essentially arguing against the weight of experience in diverse India and against improving governance.

The Modi government is in the process of introducing its massive Rs 5 lakh-per-household medical insurance scheme for 50 crore Indians. It will take at least six months to roll out significant numbers so that it can make some impact, and thus the Modi government is hardly likely to be battling for one-nation-one-poll while this is being done.

So, what is one to make of the sudden rise in discussions on the one-nation-one-poll idea? My hunch is that it is Amit Shah’s way of introducing red herrings in order to confuse his enemies in the opposition while the government goes about its job of what it hopes will be a political game-changer.