Mayank Ki Baat: Why Holding Simultaneous Polls Weakens Democracy

To end the current system of constant feedback through elections would be akin to weakening our democracy.

Is conducting one election every five years a solution to all of the problems? Not in my opinion.

(Photo: The Quint)

Video Editor: Vivek Gupta and Abhishek Sharma
Cameraperson: Abhay Sharma

(This video has been reposted from The Quint’s archives as PM Modi called for an all-party meeting on ‘One Nation, One Election’ on Wednesday, 19 June.)

For months now, an argument is being made for conducting Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha elections simultaneously. The proponents of this argument cite many benefits.

1. Simultaneous elections will dramatically reduce the cost of conducting the elections.

2. As there are elections every year and before every election, a model code of conduct is imposed and many major decisions of the government do not get implemented. So, if elections take place only once in five years, then the government’s efficiency will increase.

But is conducting one election every five years a solution to all the problems? Not in my opinion. Will conducting all elections simultaneously reduce the money spent in conducting elections? Again, not in my opinion.

According to an Economic Times report (written on the basis of a note issued by the Law Ministry), to conduct an election across the country in each an every constituency, the Election Commission will need 23 lakh EVM machines and 25 lakh VVPAT units. In total, they will cost Rs 10,000 crore. The government will have to bear this massive expense every 15 years because that is how long these machines stay functional.

Also, in order to conduct simultaneous elections, the number of security personnel to be deployed will also increase. Hence, the cost of conducting simultaneous elections will be much higher than anticipated.

The Law Ministry’s note also says that continuous elections don’t constitute any hindrance to the government’s functioning. And even though the model code of conduct prohibits the government from announcing any new projects, the work on already announced projects continues at the same rate.

Keeping the arguments on expenditure and government efficiency aside, continuous elections only strengthen a democracy. Democracy stands for ‘People’s Will’ and it can only understood through an election. It is the ‘People’s Will’ that keeps the leaders vigilant. They must get constant feedback from the public and the best possible way to ensure that, is elections.

Let’s take an example.

More than 100 changes were made to GST Bill within three months of its implementation. Why? Because in a matter of months, Gujarat elections were due and the government felt that the original GST had created a very complex system which needed to simplified as soon as possible to ease traders’ and businesspeople’s concerns.

If there hadn’t have been an imminent election in Gujarat, the government wouldn’t have been so flexible. Similarly, in the run-up to the Karnataka elections, the cost of petrol and diesel stopped increasing.

There are many other such examples.

So, if elections only take place once every five years, then a rigid government will be much slower to course-correct, and we will all suffer the consequences.

As per the current election cycle:

• In 6 states, Assembly elections are held a year prior to Lok Sabha elections.
• In 9 states, Assembly elections are held 2 years prior to Lok Sabha elections while 5 states go to polls 2.5 years after Lok Sabha elections.
• The rest of the states go to polls either simultaneously with the Lok Sabha elections or within a few months of them.

This system ensures that our leaders get constant feedback from the public, which is the biggest statement in a democracy. To end this constant feedback would be akin to weakening our democracy.

Another thing that we should keep in mind is that in our Constitution, there is no way to stop a mid-term election from being conducted.

Are we prepared for a 5-year fixed term for Lok Sabha and Legislative Assemblies? What will happen to No-Confidence motion then? 

If the ruling party loses majority and no other party or alliance is able to gain the required number, then in such a scenario, election is the only option available.

To make changes to all of this, major amendments to the Constitution will have to be made.

Shouldn’t we discuss all possible scenarios with all the stakeholders on this issue?