Many of our citizens, media analysts and middle classes are vexed with frequent elections and continuous campaign in some part of the country or other. Simultaneous elections for the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies once in five years, with all local elections for panchayats and municipalities being completed within 100 days after national and state elections, are very appealing to many people in the midst of endless partisan bickering. But reform for reform’s sake does not make our democracy better; it might only complicate our challenges further.
In order to now harmonise elections to all three tiers and hold simultaneous elections at state and national level, we will need multiple Constitutional amendments. It is almost impossible to obtain a two-thirds majority for such a proposal in Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha.
Apart from the political difficulties in arriving at consensus, does it really help? There seem to be very few real benefits of such a Constitutional amendment. The proponents argue that simultaneous elections save money. True, some public money will be saved if we avoid two separate elections to Lok Sabha and Assembly. But the benefit is marginal. It is estimated that the Lok Sabha election cost the exchequer about Rs 6500 crore, in 2019 and about Rs 10,000 crore in 2024. If elections are held separately for all State Assemblies, probably an equal sum of Rs 10,000 crore would have to be spent over a five-year cycle, or Rs 2,000 crore per annum. Simultaneous elections will probably cost 25% more than Lok Sabha election alone; and therefore the savings are about Rs 7,500 crore over five years, or Rs 1500 crore per year. While any saving on expenditure is welcome, we should note that the average expenditure by all governments put together in India is about Rs 20,000 crore per day! Given this background, the savings to the country on account of simultaneous elections are marginal.
Another argument advanced is that too much of political attention and administrative time and energy are expended on frequent election management, at the cost of governance. It is also argued that frequent elections in some state or the other are driving short-term populism and unsustainable individual welfare measures at the cost of infrastructure, growth and service delivery. Fiscal discipline and prudent management of resources are critical for promoting inclusive growth, eliminating poverty and enhancing opportunity for all. But clubbing state and national elections may end up accelerating short-term, unsustainable welfare at the Union level too, and may drive the whole economy to the ground! Now at least the electorate has the opportunity to reflect on the policies in a state, and signal their displeasure at the next available opportunity. Take Karnataka, which voted decisively for individual short-term welfare guarantees in 2023. Within one year, Congress lost most Lok Sabha seats in the State, and voters expressed the desire for a more balanced approach to economic management. Similarly in Telangana, though Congress won the Assembly election on the strength of short-term welfare guarantees, within a few months it could not win support in half the Lok Sabha constituencies. Similar electoral signals were given by the voters in Madhya Pradesh, Chattisgarh and Rajasthan earlier. In a volatile political climate, separate elections may actually give the voters an opportunity to send signals to the political system for course correction.
The Kovind committee recommended abridging the term of a state legislature elected in mid-term polls, so that the next election is held along with Lok Sabha poll. Apart from making the Assembly's term dependent on Lok Sabha tenure, abridging the term of a stable, elected Assembly will have undesirable, unintended consequences. The greatest challenge in a diverse democracy, particularly given our mass poverty and illiteracy, is the reconciliation between the short-term political compulsions to focus on unsustainable individual welfare, and the long term economic growth and public good a government has to pursue to build infrastructure, promote investment, improve education, skills and healthcare, and strengthen rule of law. If the Assembly’s term is shortened, it will be even more difficult to promote long-term thinking, and the obsession of parties and governments will be to please the electorate by maximising instant gratification at the cost of the future.
In the US, voters simultaneously elect about 25-30 officials on the same ballot paper — the president, vice president, senator, congressman, state governor, state legislator, mayor, local council, local prosecutor, school board etc. Even highly partisan voters rarely elect candidates of the same party up and down the ballot. Most of the candidates for elective office are chosen on individual merits, and voters exercise discerning judgment.
In India, 85-90% of the voters tend to vote for the same party at all levels — Union, state and local — irrespective of the merits of the candidates. Often, the voter’s perception of the state government influences their vote: if they approve the state government, that party gets all votes in all three tiers; it they are unhappy with state government, they tend to vote against the party in all tiers.
Most voters have little understanding of the responsibilities of various tiers of government: they often approach the MP for drinking water supply and MLA for street lighting! When voters have no role clarity, elections tend to be perfunctory vehicles to express dissatisfaction; vote ceases to be a refined tool to hold the appropriate government to account. We do not need more confusion in the minds of voters; we need greater clarity and discernment. We need far-reaching reforms to reduce the role of illegitimate money power and voter inducements, to empower local governments with accountability, to establish in the voter’s mind the link between her vote and the consequences affecting her life, to establish the link between taxes paid and services received, to enable the voter to understand clearly who is responsible for what, and to improve rule of law to ensure speedy, equitable, effective and impartial justice in all matters — civil and criminal.
Simultaneous elections are not a panacea or silver bullet. This is an opportunity to examine in depth calmly and dispassionately the challenges confronting our democracy, and build a consensus on the necessary reforms.
The author is the founder of Lok Satta movement and Foundation for Democratic Reforms. Email: drjploksatta@gmail.com /Twitter @jp_loksatta
