The union government wants to bring in simultaneous elections for the Lok Sabha and state assemblies.  Will this not be beneficial for the country?  What is the CPI(M) stand on this proposal?

Gurmesh Singh, Chandigarh

THE BJP-led government is eager to initiate simultaneous elections for the Lok Sabha and the state assemblies.  Prime Minister Narendra Modi has come out supporting the idea of holding simultaneous elections.

In September, the Modi government has sought the views of the people on the issue of holding simultaneous elections for the Lok Sabha and the state assemblies.  That this idea has got substantial support is evident from the fact that the president of India, Pranab Mukherjee has supported the proposal.  Earlier, the standing committee of parliament on personnel, public grievances, law and justice had in a report in 2015 approved the holding of simultaneous elections. 

The reasons given by all the advocates of the simultaneous elections are that:

·         The big expenditure incurred for conducting of separate elections can be curbed. 

·         Holding of continuous elections in the form of some assembly elections every year results in governance being affected and policy paralysis due to the imposition of the model code of conduct.  Simultaneous elections can improve governance. 

·         Simultaneous elections would free the burden of manpower deployed during election time, particularly of the police and paramilitary forces.

There are counter arguments to refute the above reasons for holding simultaneous elections. But the biggest argument against enforcing simultaneous elections for the Lok Sabha and all the state assembly elections is that it will strike at the root of democracy and federalism.

As per the present constitutional arrangement, if a government at the centre or a state happens to lose its majority in the house, it is obliged to resign. If there is no alternative government possible, then mid-term elections are to be held.

In the case of the 16 Lok Sabhas constituted so far, seven were prematurely dissolved necessitating elections before the five year term of the house was over.  At the state level, many legislative assemblies were dissolved, when the state government lost its majority.  When there have been coalition governments at the centre or at the states, the probability of the government losing its majority increased when the coalition broke up rendering the government into minority in the legislature.

In the parliamentary democratic system that exists in India, if the government gets defeated on a finance bill, it has to resign. It is the democratic norm that a government should quit if on a major policy issue, it is defeated in the legislature.  The basic principle being that a government is accountable to the elected legislature.

The proposal to enforce simultaneous elections in the Lok Sabha and the state assemblies violates this democratic principle.  What is implied in ensuring simultaneous elections is to enforce fixity of tenure of five years for the Lok Sabha and the legislative assemblies. 

As per this concept which was advocated by the BJP leader L K Advani in 1995, even if a government loses its majority, the house cannot be dissolved. It will continue for its full five year term.  This would require an alternative government to be formed or presidential rule till the term is over.  Either of these options is anti-democratic.  To form an alternative government consisting of various parties who have not got the mandate of the people to rule goes against the basic principle of democracy.

If president’s rule is to be imposed, then it is the ruling party at the centre which gets to impose its rule on the state which violates both the democratic and federal principle.

The standing committee of parliament has sought to tackle this issue by stating that an early election after the dissolution of the house can be done only if there is a motion for an early general election voted by at least two-thirds of all members of the house.  What this means is that in some way or the other, a government will have to be formed for the rest of the term which has no relation to the mandate given by the people in the election.  This will spell an end to the party system of government.

The argument that excessive expenditure on holding elections can be curbed by holding of elections together is also not a very sound argument.  Much more than the official expenditure on holding the elections, the money spent by political parties and candidates during elections is enormous.  What is required is to strictly curb the use of money in election campaigns.

The Modi government and the BJP are pushing for simultaneous elections thinking that it will benefit them as they are a party with a majority in the Lok Sabha.  Holding simultaneous elections would help them, they think, since a national campaign will have its impact on the state assembly polls.  

In a federal system, it is natural for the states to have governments with different political complexions.  The BJP wants an authoritarian centralised model wherein there can be uniformity in the political set-up in all the states. Hence, the BJP government’s aim to bring simultaneous elections to the Lok Sabha and the state assemblies has to be opposed.  There can be no tampering with the democratic will of the people.  Governments have to be accountable to the elected legislature and will have to resign if they lose the confidence of the house and fresh elections held.  In which case, there cannot be an artificially imposed simultaneous election. This will violate the constitutional arrangement.