The “One Nation, One Election” (ONOE) proposal of the BJP is in the best traditions of zero-based budgeting, where nothing is off the table, so long as it makes sense and is profitable. Clearly, the BJP sees gains in the conflation of national and state-level elections, before four large states precede the Lok Sabha to the polls in the middle of next year. Could this be because it fears losses in Madhya Pradesh — where it rules — and expects no gains in Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh, or Telangana, where it doesn’t.
If true, this triangulates with the outright rejection of the proposal by the recently created Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance (INDIA), which assumes, by default, that anything which the BJP likes will harm them. How justified is this zero-sum view?
Clubbing elections saves on direct and indirect costs.
If you consider election costs borne by the government, it is a no-brainer that doing this exercise at one go, once in five years, possibly stretched out over four to five months, is better than managing several state elections every year. The direct cost would be front-loaded and might be higher than the sum of the cost of individual elections because the level of mobilisation required would be higher and tightly concentrated within a few months, rather than spread out over several years. But major benefits accrue indirectly, mostly in terms of the subsequent uninterrupted period of four and a half years available to the Union and each state government to pursue their programmes, without being diverted by elections related political economy rhetoric and wasteful outlays. This indirect benefit accrues mostly to the Union government, whose fiscal efficiency gets drastically reduced whilst in election mode — which is near continuously at present — as a clutch of the thirty states are always in election process.
INDIA – the new opposition-alliance refuses to Tango.
The INDIA alliance is unlikely to participate positively in the special session of Parliament later this month. Opposition politicians point darkly to a link being forged in a chain starting from One Nation, One Election, One Party, One Leader. Others view it, even more darkly, as the first step towards a shift away from the parliamentary system now being followed, modelled on the UK, to a presidential one, as in the United States — although this appears less likely. The number of countries which practise a top-down authoritarian governance style even within the trappings of a parliamentary democracy is increasing. Why bother changing a system when you can subvert it instead?
Favouring the ruling party- not quite.
Will ONOE favour richer parties like the BJP? This is not self-evident. Consider that less well-off state-level parties should be happy on two counts. Prime Minister Narendra Modi is the Brahmastra (mythical Indian nuclear missile) of the BJP. Time constraints under the proposed system will restrict him from extensive campaigning as he does today, across national and state-level elections. Once these are held simultaneously, he will be forced to allow others to carry his message to BJP supporters. This should be a boon for the smaller parties. It somewhat levels the field for their leaders — given present popularity polls which favour Mr Modi over others. Also, party expenses per vote sought will now halve under the two-in-one election. More importantly, the concentration of diverse election management tasks in a shorter timeframe will encourage greater reliance on second and third-rung leaders for sound political management, as opposed to today’s laidback poll schedules, which encourage greater centralisation. So young, meritorious leaders should welcome the change.
Beware the lazy voter.
Could lazy voters prefer the default option of just voting for the same party if national and state elections are held simultaneously? This is unlikely for committed voters but more likely for fence-sitters. This implies that parties will need to enlarge their base of committed voters through continuous engagement. Consider that Naveen Patnaik’s Biju Janata Dal won decisively in Odisha versus BJP, even though voting for national and state elections was simultaneous in 2019. Caveat- the two are known to Tango.
An unfortunately exclusionary high-level consultative committee
Former President Ram Nath Kovind has been named the chair of a high-level committee formed to consider ONOE. Is this a sign of institutional regression? Not very likely. It is time we demystified “high political office” as an “endgame”. Political leadership in India should become younger to reflect its young population. Previous Presidents or Prime Ministers should not be expected to become political recluses. The inclusion of Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury, Lok Sabha leader of the single largest party in Opposition, and his refusal to participate, describing the process as a “total eyewash”, shows the lines dividing the government from the Opposition parties. More generally, the BJP has been peevish in excluding all leaders from the main opposition parties including Mallikarjun Kharge the leader of the Congress in the Rajya Sabha and President of the party.
The BJP is unlikely to be daunted by the challenges of constitutional propriety.
Given that ONOE is a cheeky innovation, albeit under discussion since 2014, it is inevitable that constitutional amendments and legislative changes would be needed. One such should be a ban on mid-term mass defections to another party which destabilises duly elected governments (mostly state governments over the last two decades), promotes “rent seeking” and undermines the development of a cohesive party cadre. The Anti Defection Act 1985 allows a three-fourths majority to forsake the party that got them elected, without suffering any penalties – as happened most recently in Maharashtra. This loophole undermines voter intentions while voting for a party and needs to be urgently plugged. Conscientious objectors should suffer the consequences by resigning.
A barrage of legal complications in implementing ONOE is missing the woods for the trees.
Given its efficiency in floor management and careful, advance political planning, the BJP is perfectly capable of navigating the thicket of barriers to a quick implementation of ONOE. The Opposition parties should take heart that they have a good chance of gaining, rather than losing, from a fast imposition of this innovation. What remains critical is the “glue” binding them. Seat adjustments targeted at reducing their collective losses, rather than maximising potential individual gains, will evidence their resolve. A quick read-up on the prisoner’s dilemma — a game theory thought experiment — would help recognise the gains from collaboration.
The INDIA alliance was born out of the helplessness of the Opposition party constituents to individually stem the rising tide of saffron. Businesspeople, when overcome by a tidal wave, rush to reduce their loss, not dream about the “might have been” best outcomes. Far from boycotting the high-level committee — a tactic reminiscent of pulling a sheet over your head to avoid seeing a ghost — they should participate actively in the process and try and structure the proposal to suit their purposes marginally better than what it could become in their absence. Sadly, the instinct to drop out, rather than engage, displays fatigue and political incapacity to deal with a fast-changing environment. This is par for the course for “jagirdars” — as the BJP paints the opposition. Why prove the BJP right?
This opinion piece first appeared in the Asian Age August 6, 2023 https://www.asianage.com/opinion/columnists/050923/sanjeev-ahluwalia-is-it-creative-disruption-or-the-murder-of-democracy.html
Opinion India 