In the witty book "Politics: Observations and Arguments" by Hendrik Hertzberg, there is a delightful anecdote that underscores the propensity of opposition parties to criticize for the mere sake of it. The story involves a group of politicians from both the ruling and opposition parties going on a bipartisan trip to the zoo. As they wander through the exhibits, they stumble upon a two-headed llama, one head amiable and the other, ill-tempered. The ruling party leader, captivated by the animal, asserts that it symbolizes the unity they aspire to achieve in politics. Despite the disparate personalities of the heads, the llama remains a single, unified entity.
However, the opposition leader, eager to outshine their counterpart, scoffs at the interpretation and claims that the llama embodies the government's inefficiency and indecisiveness. According to them, the bickering between the two heads prevents any progress. This amusing tale highlights the inclination of opposition parties to criticise their ruling counterparts even in the most light-hearted contexts, often prioritising their role as a counterbalance over providing constructive solutions. The concept of simultaneous elections, initially proposed by Prime Minister Narendra Modi in 2017, seems to have suffered a similar fate as in the anecdote.
For the purposes of this column, the term "Simultaneous Elections" refers to the organising of the Indian electoral process in a manner that synchronizes the voting for both Lok Sabha and state assembly representatives (the local bodies have not been included as elections to the local bodies is the purview of State Election Commissions). Under this system, voters would typically cast their ballots for both legislative bodies concurrently, streamlining the electoral process. It is important to note that simultaneous elections do not necessitate nationwide voting for the Lok Sabha and state assemblies on a single day. Rather, this approach could be implemented in phases, akin to current practices, as long as voters within a specific constituency cast their votes for both the state assembly and Lok Sabha on the same day.
Post-independence, the general and state assembly elections were held simultaneously. However, the concurrence got disrupted 1967 onwards. The Law Commission of India in its One Hundred and Seventieth Report on 'Reform of Electoral Laws' (1999) emphasized that simultaneous elections for Lok Sabha and states have been disrupted since 1967 due to factors like Article 356 and assembly dissolutions. Although the scope of Article 356 has been reduced, there are still unknowns that could come to pass. Thus, separate state elections should be exceptions rather than the norm, with the ideal scenario being one election every five years for both Lok Sabha and Legislative Assemblies.
Numerous committees have endorsed simultaneous elections for the nation. The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice presented a report titled "Feasibility of Holding Simultaneous Elections to the House of People (Lok Sabha) and State Legislative Assemblies" in Rajya Sabha on December 17, 2015. This extensive report suggested that all political parties should seriously explore simultaneous elections, particularly in the context of economic development and unhindered implementation of election promises due to the frequent enforcement of the Model Code of Conduct.
Similarly, the NITI Aayog Paper titled "Analysis of Simultaneous Elections: The 'What', 'Why', and 'How'" also supported this perspective. In a report, the Law Commission suggested that elections for Legislative Assemblies with terms ending six months after the General Election to Lok Sabha could be combined; however, the results should only be declared at the end of their respective tenures. The 21st Law Commission's 2018 draft report on Simultaneous Elections further reinforced the favorable stance towards concurrent elections.
Indeed, the question arises: do simultaneous elections offer tangible advantages? The answer, unequivocally, is affirmative. There are four primary benefits to conducting elections concurrently.
(1) BJP frequently faces scrutiny for perpetually operating in an election-centric mindset. This continual focus on elections results from the fact that one state or another consistently undergoes the electoral process every few months, keeping the ruling party in a perpetual state of election preparation. That is the case for opposition parties too. Constant elections do take a toll on developmental projects. Essentially, aside from standard administrative tasks, all development programs, welfare schemes, and capital projects are predominantly put on hold while the Model Code of Conduct is in effect. By implementing simultaneous elections, the disruptive effects of the Model Code of Conduct on developmental projects can be substantially minimized.
(2) Cost Savings: The rising cost of conducting elections for both the Lok Sabha and state assemblies is a significant concern. The Law Commission's 2018 draft report revealed that the average spending for assembly elections remained consistent across Lok Sabha and state elections, highlighting the drain on public funds. The expenditure on account of elections to the House of the People is borne by the government of India and for polls to the state assemblies, by the state government. However, for simultaneous elections, the financial burden is equally shared between the Centre and states (50:50 ratio), offering cost-saving benefits to both parties and reducing individual expenditures considerably.
(3) Logistical Challenge: Conducting elections demands extensive resources and coordination, as the Election Commission must arrange electronic voting machines, election officials, paramilitary, and security forces. Frequently, government schoolteachers and employees are enlisted for election duties, which negatively impacts both teaching and learning activities in schools and overall efficiency in government offices. Moreover, numerous agencies are engaged in election processes. These include enforcement bodies such as CBDT, CBIC, DGIT (Inv.), State Excise Department, State Police Department, Narcotics Control Bureau, DRI, ED, FIU-IND, BCAS, RPF, Department of Post, BSF, SSB, ITBP, Coast Guard, and Assam Rifles, all of which contribute to effective election expenditure monitoring. The Election Commission must coordinate these logistics for every election, whether for Lok Sabha or state assemblies, amplifying the complexity and resource-intensiveness of the process.
(4) Simultaneous elections may lead to an increase in voter turnout. In the context of Spain, two different scholarly investigations (Investigation 1 and Investigation 2) have revealed a noteworthy correlation between the simultaneity of electoral events and voter engagement. Specifically, the research posits that concurrent elections, irrespective of the types under consideration, have a tangible effect on elevating the mean voter turnout. Consequently, simultaneous elections play a crucial role in bolstering civic participation, which is evident in India's case. Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Odisha, Sikkim, and Telangana are the states which currently have simultaneous elections. The voter turnout in the general elections in these states in 2019 was 80.38%, 82.11%, 73.29%, 81.41% and 62.77%. Barring Telangana, the remaining states surpassed the national average voter turnout of 67.4%, highlighting their robust civic engagement in the democratic process.
Despite its numerous benefits, some political parties have criticised the idea of simultaneous elections. In our forthcoming column, we will explore potential critiques of simultaneous elections and try to present a compelling counterargument. We will also explain the ways in which simultaneous elections can be conducted.
Bibek Debroy is the Chairman, Economic Advisory Council to the Prime Minister (EAC-PM) & Aditya Sinha is Additional Private Secretary (Policy & Research), EAC-PM.
Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author.