It has been reported that work is being done by the government to finalise the proposal on the ‘One Nation, One Election’ idea. Under this concept, the national and state elections are to be held at the same time. Or, maybe, the state elections may be held together two and a half years from the general elections. It may seem a good idea on the face of it as it will certainly reduce expenses and give political parties time to concentrate on governance where they are in power, but a deeper examination of the way democracy works in the country may give pause for thought.
Democracy is an ongoing process under which the people would like a continuing say on how things are functioning. Anti-incumbency and dissatisfaction can be expressed in various ways in different states. It may be the present Union Government’s belief that advantage may accrue to the more popular leader or party by increasing uniformity in the choices, but that is not necessarily the case. Without early warnings from state level elections, anti-incumbency can pile up and hit like a Tsunami at election time. There ought to be regular opportunities to release tensions. For instance, nobody was able to anticipate the enormous accumulation of anti-Hasina sentiment in Bangladesh before it suddenly exploded.
One should consider how, state by state, various permutations and combinations are being worked out in the ongoing electoral scene in India. Even when considered from the national level, the issues at the front in J&K and Haryana are starkly different. Maharashtra will also pose its own complexity. Political parties can address these separately as each election is held, instead of adopting a lump sum approach if these are pooled together. If there are going to be setbacks, they can also be contained in that particular state.
Although the BJP does not have the political muscle at the present to push through such a legislation, even if it wished to, it must consider the fact that it benefits the most from separate elections. Its declared priorities in J&K are security, countering separatism, enforcing rights of ignored minorities and disenfranchised sections, providing justice to the exiled Pandits. On the other hand, Haryana requires caste management and appeasement of the farmers. If PM Modi were required to campaign on such different issues in all of India’s states, would he be able to do justice to local issues? It is important, therefore, to put greater thought to the ‘One Nation…’ proposal before presenting it before the public.
