Simultaneous elections

The idea needs a political consensus

The high-level committee under the chairmanship of former President Ram Nath Kovind, set up to study the possibility of simultaneous elections to all three levels of government, has unanimously endorsed the idea and recommended the way forward in its report submitted to President Droupadi Murmu on Thursday. While the cycle for electing governments at the Union and state levels varies currently, the idea of simultaneous elections is not new. Elections were held simultaneously to the House of the People (Lok Sabha) and Assemblies in the initial years after Independence. The idea thus is to restore simultaneous elections through enabling amendments to the Constitution to make it a permanent feature of the electoral process.

There are a variety of reasons why holding simultaneous elections, in principle, makes sense. For instance, given the competitive nature of electoral democracy, continuous elections affect policy discourse because electoral considerations tend to influence the positions of political parties both in states and at the Centre. With simultaneous elections, parties in government as well as in the Opposition at both the Centre and states would be able to concentrate on policy matters until the next general elections. This will reduce uncertainty and help push up growth. Technical work presented by the panel shows that outcomes in the context of growth, inflation, investment, and public expenditure tend to be better after periods of synchronised elections. While the direct fiscal cost of holding elections at different times is not much, it’s the policy uncertainty that affects governance.

Despite the merits of the idea, the challenge is to devise a mechanism to hold simultaneous elections because fresh elections may be needed for the House of the People or Assemblies before the completion of their terms for various reasons. The panel in this context has recommended the synchronisation of elections to the House of the People and Assemblies as a first step. Elections to local bodies can be synchronised as the second step and be conducted within 100 days after the first step. For synchronisation in the first step, the committee has recommended that the first sitting of the House of the People after general elections be notified as the appointed date. The tenure of all Assemblies constituted after the appointed date and before the end of the full term of the House of the People shall only be up to the period of the next general elections to the House of the People. In the case of a hung House or any such event, a fresh election to the House of the People will only be for the remainder of the term of the previous House. In the case of fresh elections to an Assembly, the new Assembly will continue only till the end of the term of the House of the People.

While the suggested mechanism and enabling constitutional provisions will ensure synchronisation, it may lead to other problems. For instance, if a government loses the confidence of the House closer to the expiry, say, a year before the expiry of the term of the House of the People, the Opposition would be reluctant to bring a no-confidence motion. Although the government in such a scenario will remain in office, it may not be reflecting the will of the people. Such a position may not be in the spirit of democracy. It is thus important that the recommendations are taken forward only with a wider political consensus. This is crucial because most national parties are not in favour of the idea. Holding simultaneous elections is not an end worth achieving if it undermines democratic values.