The idea of “one nation, one election” often gains traction in public opinion but ultimately fizzles out. The notion of not keeping the country and politicians in constant election mode is a good one. Even the PM has backed it on several occasions. With a state assembly election almost always looming around the corner, politicians focus will often be on winning that election. Hence, long-term beneficial policies, with no immediate political gain get deprioritized. Fewer elections can lead to huge cost savings too. Conducting an election is expensive. Merging them will save costs. Of course, fewer elections will mean fewer counting days and fewer gigs for election day expert panelists (yours truly included), but that’s not the point. Constant elections are a major distraction a large country like ours, where politicians need to be on the road to address one election rally or the other.
Yet, it hasn’t happened. Many political parties, especially the regional ones, have opposed one nation, one election. They believe merging state elections with the national one would mean an advantage for the national parties, which run mega campaigns and dominate media coverage. Many also believe so many elections keep politicians on their toes, which is good for accountability. There’re execution issues. The EC workload would multiply (EC,however, has said it can manage this). This change will also require major constitutional amendments, requiring 2/3rds majority in both houses and ratification by over half the states – no easy feat. There’s also the issue of state governments falling middle of their term due to no-confidence motions. How do you bring those states back to the one nation-one election calendar again?
These counter arguments do have merit. However, this doesn’t mean there’s nothing to be done here. Perhaps the solution here is a middle of the road one – a one country, two elections (or a one country, three elections). This middle solution allows most of the benefits of one nation, one election, while mitigating most concerns. Here’s how this would work.
Let’s start with one country, two elections. We have the national elections as usual. At year 2.5, we have the state elections, all at once. This can be termed as a mid-term-all-state-elections, as it is mid-way through the national term. Hence, the state elections are separated from the national elections, so the latter won’t crowd the former. This mega mid-term state election also adds a layer of accountability, in between a central government’s term. And since we reduced elections to two times nationwide, we still save a lot of costs.
How will no-confidence motion and government dissolution type situation work? Here’s one way. In a no-confidence motion, another set of elections are held. However, if the existing government fell before 2.5 years of their current term (say at 2 years), the new government will come for the remaining term (3years), and the election of that state will again be held at the next all-state-mid-term state election date as usual. However, if the government falls after 2.5 years (say 3yrs), fresh elections will be held for the remaining term (2yrs) as well as 5 more years (so total of 7 years). This way, the subsequent state elections will align back to the mid-term-state-election-date calendar. Eventually, a few governments may fall, but the calendar will never go completely out of whack and correct itself back to the cycle.
If one mid-term election for all states seems too strict, we can have two mid-term state election dates. Each Lok Sabha term is for 5 years, or 60 months. Hence, we can have a mid-term state election every 20 months, each time for half the states. Again, we get many benefits in this one nation, three elections format too. We save costs, we keep some accountability, we also keep the politicians free from election mode barring the three election dates. Again in this system too, if a state government dissolves, we do a fresh election for just the remaining term (if more than 40 months are left), or a full term plus the remaining term (if less than 20 months are left), or the remaining term plus another 20 months until the next mid-term-state-election date (if between 20-40 months are left).
The above is just a simplistic, conceptual representation of a massive reform that will require huge consensus and parliamentary effort. The details can and should be refined and worked out more.
However, we do need to consider some changes to the existing set-up, which is a drain on national as well as leadership resources. With a one-country, two (or three) election system, we get most of the benefits of consolidating elections while keeping the accountability and some flexibility for various situations.
Change might be difficult, or even a bit scary. However, change is what ultimately leads to progress, whether in our individual lives or as a nation. As we seek to progress as a nation, we must seek to reform and improve everything, including our elections.