Opinion: One Nation, One Election — Speculation, calculations

On Thursday, just before INDIA bloc could sit and discuss weaponising their alliance, a political explosion shattered Delhi's calm.

Government sources provided subtle hints that the agenda for the five-day special Parliament session, beginning September 18, convened between the monsoon and winter editions, could include a legislative move, armed to upset the Opposition's plans.

By evening, news headlines said legislation for the Bharatiya Janata Party's 'One Nation One Election' proposal could get pushed in the special session. It triggered a debate - will the law plotted and steered by the BJP, despite all the inherent challenges, end up helping the saffron party against a resurgent Opposition in the throes of uniting?

Even those who walked the neutral opinion zone felt the proposal indicated a mounting sense of worry in the BJP, over the rising Opposition unity index.

By Friday afternoon, the government made a visible move - its intent was out.

It constituted a High-Level Committee (HLC) headed by former president Ram Nath Kovind to explore the feasibility of a 'One Nation One Election'.

On Saturday, a gazette notification presented the mandate of the committee.

It said, "Elections to the House of the People and Legislative Assemblies of States were mostly held simultaneously from 1951-52 to 1967, after which this cycle broke and now, elections are held almost every year, which result in massive expenditure by the government, diversion of security forces and other electoral officers engaged in such elections from their primary duties for significantly prolonged periods, disruption in developmental work on account of prolonged application of Model Code of Conduct, etc."

The notification backed the need to rewind to 1967 by citing the 170th Report on Reforms of Electoral Laws by the Law Commission of India, which said, "We must go back to the situation where the elections to Lok Sabha and all the Legislative Assemblies are held at once. The holding of a separate election to a Legislative Assembly should be an exception and not the rule."

To assist ex-president Kovid, the committee has Union Home Minister Amit Shah, Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury, Congress leader in Lok Sabha Ghulam Nabi Azad, ex-Leader of Opposition in Rajya Sabha NK Singh, ex-Chairman 15th Finance Commission Subhash C Kashyap, ex-Secretary General Lok Sabha Harish Salve, senior advocate Sanjay Kothari, and former Chief Vigilance Commissioner as members.

However, the composition did not go down well with the Opposition, as there was only one leader from its ranks and no representation of the states, while the legislation involves the future of all Indian states and regional parties.

This marks a historic first. Perhaps, never before has an ex-President, the one-time occupant of the highest constitutional office in the country, been assigned a task by the government.

A top government source, when asked if there was a connection between the special session and the legislation, instead of providing clarity, muddied the waters.

"What if the government uses the five days to create a momentous transition from the old Parliament building to the new one? The sittings on the first two days can be held in the old building, where discussions can take place about what all was achieved in this building since 1947. And then can move to the new building to discuss the potential and possibilities that the new building could create. It is at this point a landmark legislation like 'One Nation One Election' Bill may or may not enter the frame," he said.

WHAT IF 'ONE NATION ONE ELECTION' IS ENACTED

Hypothetically, what happens if the government moves the 'One Nation One Election'? There are a number of reasons why the Opposition, which is busy trying to stitch a united face against the Modi juggernaut chasing a third term, will have to virtually buy a new drawing board to counter enactment of a law enabling the 'One Nation One Election' policy.

The Opposition alliance, after meetings in Patna and Bengaluru on June 23 and July 18 respectively, was under pressure to provide tangible and visible outcomes before its Mumbai meet. After discussions spread over two days, on Friday, a 13-member coordination committee, with two heavyweights - NCP chief Sharad Pawar and Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin, was announced.

Since questions were being asked - what's a coalition if it avoids seat sharing, the alliance took a big step forward, which experts felt could prove to be a deal breaker.

At the meeting, leaders like Sharad Pawar proposed that the alliance can easily work out a common candidate formula on 350-400 seats, where there is no conflict between the constituents. For the remaining seats in states like West Bengal, Delhi and Kerala, contests between partners in the alliance can be minimised.

Post the Mumbai Opposition meeting, Congress ex-president Rahul Gandhi spoke about differences between coalition partners and the need for flexibility. He said, "We have to come together in an efficient manner."

However, CPI(M) general secretary pragmatically outlined the problems by saying, "Seat sharing will be decided at the state level and discussions for that will be held at that level. Things may vary from state to state."

The INDIA coalition includes leaders like TMC's Mamata Banerjee, AAP’s Arvind Kejriwal and even the Left in Kerala. They have complete supremacy in their state and are still ready to join hands with parties like Congress for a Lok Sabha poll, as it involves adjustments for just 82 "conflict seats".

But what if Lok Sabha polls are held with assembly polls?

State assemblies collectively have 521 seats and the presence of state-level turf battles and large number of seats will make seat-sharing at the assembly level a tough job. Also, clashes from the top to the cadres at the assembly level will derail attempts to stitch seat-sharing pacts at the Lok Sabha level.

That's one reason why 'One Nation One Election' is bad news for the Opposition and its attempts to unite.

Next, the war room strategy of the INDIA alliance is to fight national polls on local and state-level issues.

Karnataka assembly polls taught the Opposition that in states where Narendra Modi is not fighting a battle on local issues, could prove to be beneficial.

But, the Opposition right now has no national narrative, no clear counter to polarisation and no clear challenger to Narendra Modi.

Hypothetically, if the government does push and clear the 'One Nation One Election' constitutional amendment, it may get a potent weapon to demolish all Opposition plans. Concurrent or synchronised elections will blur the lines between the Lok Sabha and assemblies, in a country where people have mastered the art of tweaking their electoral preference for different levels of the game.

It should be noted that there is not much evidence to prove that voters will press the button for the same party if two polls are held together, which implies, Modi may be on the ticket for Lok Sabha, as well as every state assembly.

A similar situation was witnessed in Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka and Rajasthan in 2018, where the Congress won the state assemblies, but the BJP swept the states in the Lok Sabha elections within months.

Ten years is a long time in Indian politics and anti-incumbency, along with global and local issues, eat into the popularity of a party or its leader.

According to the BJP, if Lok Sabha and assembly polls are held together, the Modi factor will loom large over all other determinants reducing anti-incumbency, especially in states where the BJP has lost ground, or where the party has been cheering the 'double engine ki sarkar' theory.

This is the second tactical disadvantage the 'One Nation One Election' may have.

OPPOSITION'S CASH CRUNCH VS BJP'S RICHES

Several Opposition leaders, like Mamata Banerjee, Sharad Pawar, Lalu Prasad Yadav and Akhilesh Yadav are one-state players with limited resources and cadres. Simultaneously, holding polls will mean leaders of these parties would have to work for both poll levels in their state and may get locked in. They would have little time to spend campaigning for their alliance partners.

Further, they will face a fund imbalance. In 2022, the funds by all parties stood at around Rs 9,500 crore. The BJP's share of Rs 5,400 was 57 per cent of the total.

A report by the Association of Democratic Reforms (ADR) in July stated that in 2016-17 and 2021-22, the BJP received Rs 5,271.97 crore in donations, while all other parties put together got Rs 1,783.93 crore.

This cash-rich status provides the third advantage to the BJP over its opponents in a 'One Nation One Election' format, if one analyses the kind of funds spent on polls.

During the 2014 Lok Sabha polls, by conservative estimates, parties had spent a whopping Rs 30,000 crore. In 2019, this shot up to Rs 60,000 crore as there were over 9000 candidates and excess of 600 parties.

Also, if the 2024 elections are held with state assemblies, the total number of candidates in play will be huge.

The regional players will fail to match the BJP's might. Compared to its regional allies, the Congress, which now rules cash-rich states like Karnataka and Chhattisgarh and a big state like Rajasthan, may be better off.

This, in the long run, could alter India’s political landscape.

The decline of regional players will be a cause for cheer for the BJP. In most states, where there was a two-party contest, the BJP triumphed over the Congress in Lok Sabha. However, it has failed to grow in states like Odisha, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, and to some extent Bengal, where the regional players hold sway.

CLAIMS VS FACTS

BJP and the backers of 'One Nation One Election' say its arrival will reduce expenses and improve governance.

However, there is no empirical evidence and the argument is that every year, there are four to five assembly polls and then the Lok Sabha polls.

The imposition of the model code of conduct leads to dislocations and disruptions in governance, policy-making and implementation. In the polls for the 16th Lok Sabha, 10 million public officials were involved.

Indians voted together for Lok Sabha and assemblies in 1952, 1957, 1962 and 1967. Then, Congress at the centre changed the pace by sacking state governments. The president's rule, since 1951, has been imposed a total of 115 times.

It was LK Advani who brought the limelight to the 'One Nation One Election' concept.

The law commission in 1999, headed by Justice Reddy, recommended simultaneous polls.

A parliamentary standing committee report in 2015 reiterated the recommendation, claiming its absence was hurting governance.

In 2016, PM Modi stepped in to back the move, following which, a NITI Aayog working paper was backed by a law commission working paper in 2018.

But will synchronisation of poll cycles be easy? The answer is 'no'.

Top constitution experts say it would require five cascading amendments to the Constitution. Each has to be passed by Parliament with a two-thirds majority and 50 per cent of state assemblies.

Even if it gets numerical backing, there are challenges. If it becomes a reality anytime soon, what will happen to assemblies like Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh, where the terms are about to end? What about Karnataka, which has a new assembly?

In future, if there is a law and order breakdown in a state or a government loses a majority, how will elections be synchronised with the Lok Sabha? Will it be kept under the President's rule? The Constitution has tenets on how long a state can be kept under central rule.

Then what if the central government loses a trust vote?

If a new Lok Sabha has to be elected midway, what about all the assemblies?

These are pertinent questions.

If the government brings a 'One Nation One Election' Bill in the short session, the terms and references of the high-level committee would -

• examine and recommend if the amendments to the Constitution would require ratification by the States
• analyse and recommend possible solutions in a scenario of simultaneous elections emerging out of a hung House, adoption of the no-confidence motion, or defection or any such other event
• suggest a framework for synchronisation of elections and specifically, suggest the phases and time frame within which simultaneous elections may be held if they cannot be held in one go

EARLY POLLS OR EXTENDED TERM?

The Opposition erupted over the news of the government mulling the 'One Nation One Election' move.

During the Opposition meeting in Mumbai, the INDIA bloc stressed that PM Modi may go for early elections - way before May 2024. Leaders like Nitish Kumar, Lalu Yadav and Akhilesh Yadav voiced their concerns.

However, the top BJP sources deny such reports.

A member of the BJP’s apex body, the parliamentary board, said, "The Prime Minister and Amit Shah by now would have discussed the issue with the top leaders and the RSS if there is going to a pre-term end Lok Sabha poll. We have a dynamic election machinery in all states, but still, the preparedness level is underway."

A member of the RSS said, "The Ram temple in Ayodhya may be ready sometime between January and February next year. The Prime Minister would prefer to enter the poll arena after that."

Lok Sabha elections are eight months away. At this moment, there are nine state assemblies with three to nine months of term remaining. Also, there are six states with a massive 51-58 month term remaining.

WILL BJP BORROW FROM THE PAST?

So what options does the high-level committee have? What if the committee recommends extending the term of the current Lok Sabha, say by a year?

In such a case, the term of nine existing assemblies would need an extension. The end of a 12-month extension for Lok Sabha would coincide with the end of the term of five states.

Can the committee headed by ex-president Kovid propose a cut-off point of a two-and-a-half-year term remaining for synchronising assembly and Lok Sabha polls?

Can the term of a Lok Sabha be extended? Has it been done before?

The answer to both is 'yes'.

The BJP can borrow a trick from Indira Gandhi. She brought the 42nd Constitutional amendment in 1976, which, perhaps, was one of the most critical and controversial amendments to the Indian Constitution.

Interestingly, even then, the amendments were recommended by a committee - the Swaran Singh Committee.

The amendment curtailed the power of the courts and the freedom enjoyed by a citizen by laying down fundamental duties. It also added the terms - Socialist, Secular and Integrity to the Preamble.

However, in the context of the current debate on 'One Nation One Election', the 42nd constitutional amendment extended the term of Lok Sabha and Legislative Assemblies members from five to six years.

This was carried out by amending Article 17, which deals with MLAs and Clause(2) of Article 83, which covers the Members of Parliament.

This amendment of the Constitution came during the Draconian Emergency. Almost a year later, the first coalition government of India, through the 44 Amendment Act 1978, along with restoring the powers of the Supreme Courts and high courts, repealed the change and shortened the term of the Lok Sabha and assemblies back to the original - five years.

I wonder if the current government will bite a bullet, especially because what the Emergency brought has always been a stick the BJP has wielded against the Congress.

(Rahul Shrivastava is a senior journalist.)

(Views expressed in this opinion piece are that of the author.)