Many
citizens, media analysts, and the middle class are increasingly frustrated with
the constant cycle of elections and ongoing campaigns across various regions.
The idea of holding Lok Sabha and State Assembly elections simultaneously every
five years, followed by local elections for panchayats and municipalities
within 100 days, seems appealing as a remedy to the never-ending partisan
disputes. However, implementing reforms simply for the sake of change may not
necessarily enhance our democracy and could potentially introduce new
complexities into the existing challenges.
To
align elections across all three tiers and implement simultaneous state and
national elections, several constitutional amendments are required. Securing a
two-thirds majority in both the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha for such sweeping
changes is a daunting challenge.
Beyond
the political hurdles in achieving consensus, it’s worth questioning the real
advantages of such a Constitutional amendment. Advocates claim that
simultaneous elections could reduce costs. While it’s true that combining Lok
Sabha and Assembly elections might save some public funds, the savings are
relatively modest. For example, the Lok Sabha elections cost around Rs 6,500
crore in 2019 and Rs 10,000 crore in 2024. If State Assembly elections were
held separately, an additional Rs 10,000 crore might be spent over a five-year
period, roughly Rs 2,000 crore annually. Conducting simultaneous elections
could potentially increase costs by 25% compared to a single Lok Sabha
election, resulting in estimated savings of about Rs 7,500 crore over five
years, or Rs 1,500 crore annually. However, considering the total daily
expenditure of all governments in India is approximately Rs 20,000 crore, the
potential savings from simultaneous elections are relatively minor.
Proponents
argue that frequent elections consume excessive political and administrative
resources, detracting from effective governance. They suggest that continuous
election cycles foster short-term populism and unsustainable welfare schemes,
which undermine long-term infrastructure development and service delivery.
Sound fiscal management and resource allocation are vital for fostering
inclusive growth, reducing poverty, and creating opportunities for all.
However, consolidating state and national elections could potentially
exacerbate the problem of short-termism at the Union level, risking economic
instability. Currently, separate elections provide voters the chance to assess
and respond to policies over time. For instance, Karnataka’s 2023 vote for immediate
welfare measures led to a backlash against Congress in the subsequent Lok Sabha
elections, signaling a desire for more balanced economic management. Similarly,
despite Congress’s success in Telangana with short-term promises, it struggled
in Lok Sabha constituencies soon after. This pattern of voter feedback seen in
Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, and Rajasthan shows that separate elections offer
a vital mechanism for voters to prompt adjustments in policy direction,
maintaining a check on short-term political incentives.
The
Kovind committee’s recommendation to shorten the term of state legislatures
elected in mid-term to align with Lok Sabha elections could lead to unintended
negative outcomes. By tying the Assembly's term to that of the Lok Sabha,
stable, elected governments might face disruptions. In a diverse democracy like
ours, with widespread poverty and low literacy, balancing short-term political
pressures with the need for long-term economic development is already a complex
challenge. Governments must focus on infrastructure, investment, education,
healthcare, and rule of law. Shortening Assembly terms might exacerbate the
tendency for short-termism, where political parties prioritize immediate
electoral gains over sustainable, future-oriented policies, thus undermining
efforts to foster long-term growth and public welfare.
In
the US, voters are accustomed to selecting from a wide array of officials on a
single ballot, including the president, vice president, senators, congressmen,
state governors, state legislators, mayors, local council members, prosecutors,
and school board members. Despite the high level of partisanship, voters often
do not uniformly support candidates from the same party across all positions.
Instead, they tend to evaluate each candidate on their individual merits,
exercising a nuanced and discerning approach to their choices.
In
India, a significant majority of voters—approximately 85-90%—tend to cast their
ballots for the same political party across all levels of government, including
Union, state, and local elections, often overlooking the individual merits of
the candidates. Voter sentiment towards the state government plays a crucial
role in this trend; when citizens are satisfied with the state administration,
they are likely to support that party at all levels. Conversely,
dissatisfaction with the state government often leads to a broader rejection of
the party, affecting votes in every tier of governance.
Many
voters lack a clear understanding of the distinct roles of different levels of
government, often approaching MPs for issues like drinking water and MLAs for
street lighting. This lack of role clarity can reduce elections to mere
expressions of frustration rather than meaningful evaluations of governance.
Instead of complicating matters further, what is needed is greater voter
clarity and discernment. Comprehensive reforms are essential to diminish the
influence of corrupt money and voter inducements, to enhance accountability at
the local government level, and to strengthen the connection between votes,
taxes, and their real-world impacts. It's crucial to make voters aware of who
is responsible for what, and to ensure a fair and effective justice system that
addresses both civil and criminal issues swiftly and impartially.
Simultaneous
elections are not a cure-all solution. Instead, this moment should be used to
carefully and objectively explore the challenges facing our democracy. It
offers a chance to develop a thoughtful consensus on the essential reforms
needed to address these issues effectively.
(Views
are personal. Email: dipakkurmiglpltd@gmail.com)