'One Nation, One Election' Will Reduce Democratic Accountability : Former Chief Election Commissioner SY Quraishi

Holding simultaneous elections for Lok Sabha, State Assemblies and local bodies can result in the dilution of democratic accountability, opined former Chief Election Commissioner SY Quraishi.

He was speaking in an interview with LiveLaw about the concept of "One Nation, One Election". Recently, the Central Government constituted a High-Level Committee to examine the feasibility of this proposal.

Quraishi said that seen purely from the perspective of administrative convenience, this idea is good; however, there are serious implications for democracy. "The problems far outweigh the benefits. From a purely administrative perspective, there could be some benefits. But from the perspective of democracy and the Constitution, the benefits are not very correct", he said. One fallout is the mixing up of the local and regional issues with the national issues.

"In a panchayat election, you might be concerned about the state of a drainage or the working of an Anganwadi. I want that to function rather than bother about India's policy towards Ukraine. So here is a local issue and an international issue and they get mixed up. This is bound to create confusion". He referred to certain studies which indicated that whenever Parliamentary and Assembly elections coincided, one party emerged victorious in both. However, if those elections are held with a gap of even a few months, the results are different. He pointed out the example of the 2019 Delhi elections, where one party won the Vidhan Sabha and another party won the Lok Sabha elections held after a few months. When issues are different, people choose accordingly.

"Legally, we are a federal country. Every region has its own different issues. So therefore, many are saying that this will be an attack on federalism".

Issues of legal feasibility

Quraishi further said that simultaneous elections raise questions of constitutional and legal feasibility. To achieve this goal, the suggestion made by the Law Commission of India in 2018 was to provide a fixed term of five years for the elected government. A no-confidence motion against the government can succeed only if the opposition party comes up with an alternate proposal to form a government. Thus, the no-confidence motion must be accompanied by a confidence motion. Otherwise, the existing government can continue by default.

The former CEC opined that this proposal severely affects democratic accountability. If a government is corrupt or is working against the national interest and the people want the government out, how can such a government be given a fixed term?

"Suppose, one government loses majority in six months. So for four and a half years, you want the president's rule?", he asked. He pointed out that after the Supreme Court's ruling in the SR Bommai case, the President's rule can be imposed only in exceptional circumstances.

The Law Commission itself had acknowledged that the proposed amendments to the Constitution (Articles 83 85 172 174 and 356) to implement simultaneous elections are "amenable to legal challenges in accordance with the doctrine of basic structure", he pointed out. He also expressed concerns at the Law Commission's proposal to dilute the tenth schedule for this purpose, as it can encourage defections.

Multi-phased elections can be beneficial

He referred to an interesting anecdote shared by a politician - jab chunav aata hain, garibon ke ped me pulav aatha hain (whenever elections happen, the poor get benefit).

Quaraishi also referred to another interesting observation made by a Member of Parliament who said that "people love frequent elections because that is the only time they get importance. Most poor people have no power except during the elections".

So, when elections are not simultaneous, the chances of politicians going to the people are higher, since there would be different rounds of campaigns for Parliament, assembly and local body elections.

"We have seen many times people complaining that their MLA or MP has gone missing after getting elected. They won't go back to the people for the next five years. Voters like that politicians should keep coming to them with folded hands so at least they will be able to get a reversal of some of their problems", he said.

When the interviewer asked if he was saying that frequent elections would increase the accountability of politicians at the ground level, Quraishi answered in the affirmative.

"It increases accountability", he agreed.

Feasibility issues

Quraishi also raised certain concerns regarding feasibility. He pointed out that the local body elections are conducted by the State Election Commissions, which are autonomous bodies. Difficulties might arise in coordinating all SECs for holding local body elections together with Assembly and Lok Sabha polls.

Ensuring the availability of enough Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) for simultaneous elections is another big challenge. At present, the ECI recycles EVMs.

"Now we have about 20 lakh EVMs. For simultaneous elections, we need 40 lakh more. It will take at least 2-3 years if not four years to manufacture so many EVMs. It is not just the EVMs, there is also VVPAT. So these two machines have to be manufactured. Manufacturing takes some time. We cannot give it to the private sector. We give it only to two public sector undertakings - BHEL and ECIL. They have a limited capacity. So, in any case, even if a mandate is given to the Election Commission to hold elections simultaneously... in principle it is easy. But for logistical reasons, it will require some time", he said.

The video of the interview can be watched here.