If, like many I know, you’re struggling to understand One Nation, One Election, let me try to help. Proponents and opponents of the concept have flooded us with their advocacy and criticism. But how do we judge between the pros and cons? Are all of them relevant? Or are some more significant than others?
Let’s start with the reasons why people support the concept. First, the cost factor. No doubt elections every five years are cheaper than multiple elections at different times. But Shashi Tharoor and Praveen Chakravarty have argued that the savings are less than Rs 5,000 crore a year. For an economy India’s size, should that be a deciding factor?
The second reason is that the restrictions of the model code of conduct will only apply for a limited period and, therefore, politicians can devote themselves to governance. But the model code only applies nationwide when there’s a national election. At the state level, it’s a minor concern. Again, how important is this?
The truth is, neither are determining concerns. Elections — which are perhaps the most important expression of democracy — should not be judged by their cost nor by the conduct required for their fair implementation.
Let’s now come to the arguments against. First, does it contradict the character of our country? We’re not one nation one religion, one nation one language, one nation one culture or, in fact, one nation one anything. We’re a union of states where our differences constitute our wealth. They make us special and significant. Does One Nation, One Election detract from that? Think carefully about this.
Second, does One Nation, One Election run the risk of prioritising national issues over local ones? If it does — and I would suspect so — does it have a tendency to convert a federal structure into a unitary structure? It won’t happen immediately, but it could over time.
What will happen is the regional concerns of smaller states will be drowned out by the national demands of the Centre. The voices of Goa, Sikkim, Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh, Pondicherry and the North East will be subsumed by the cacophony from Delhi.
Third, when parliamentary elections have become increasingly presidential, is there a danger One Nation, One Election will exacerbate that trend? If it does, could it push our multi-party system towards a one-party state? If this is a credible fear, it ought not to be taken lightly.
All of this has the potential to violate the basic structure of our Constitution. It depends on how much of this happens.
But there’s another concern. We need to expand and deepen our democracy. In fact, 50 years ago Atal Bihari Vajpayee wanted a right to recall. One Nation, One Election does the opposite. It narrows our democracy by straightjacketing the opportunity to vote. In other words, it reverses its desired trajectory.
There’s one more issue and it’s a philosophical one. What will happen if a government loses its majority before five years? The Kovind Committee suggests an election only for the remaining part of that tenure. But could that dilute the value of the voter’s mandate? On some occasions, they would vote for a government for five years, on others only for a year or two. Should we arbitrarily diminish the value of the vote in this way?
No doubt this happens each time there’s a bye-election, but isn’t there a difference between voting for an individual and voting for an entire assembly or Parliament? The question is worth thinking about.
Actually, none of the reasons for mid-term elections will cease to exist. You will still have early elections for several reasons. It’s just that governments thus elected will be for a reduced period to enable, every five years, One Nation, One Election. Seen in this light, what difference will One Nation, One Election make? In fact, we could end up with more elections, not less!
So, what’s my conclusion? I hesitate to share it. However, my reservations have been explicitly expressed. If you want to be guided by me, I’ve written enough.
The writer is president, Infotainment Television
