In this context, the Modi cabinet recently approved the recommendations of a committee led by former President Ram Nath Kovind, which was set up to examine the feasibility of the proposal. The committee recommended conducting elections for the Parliament, state legislative assemblies, and local bodies simultaneously. However, this approach contradicts the federal spirit enshrined in the Indian Constitution. It undermines democratic values and threatens the essence of federalism.

According to the Constitution, both Parliament and state assemblies have a fixed five-year term. Implementing the One Nation, One Election system would require altering these fixed terms. For instance, if a state government collapses midway through its term, the assembly’s schedule would have to be aligned with the national election cycle. This means local issues and regional needs may be suppressed under a centralized system, thereby eroding the spirit of federalism. India is a nation of diverse cultures, languages, and regional problems. This proposal could potentially erase that diversity. It poses a grave threat to India’s democracy and constitutional federal structure.

Challenges of Constitutional Amendments:

To implement this proposal, amendments must be made to five key provisions of the Constitution (e.g., Article 83, Article 172, etc.). This requires a two-thirds majority in Parliament and approval from a majority of state legislatures. The Modi government currently does not have such a majority. In this backdrop, the Prime Minister appealed during his Independence Day address for all political parties to support the proposal, indicating an effort to mobilize public opinion. However, constitutional amendments are not easy and must take into account the opinions of the states, making the process highly challenging.

Threat to Democracy:

Though “One Nation, One Election” appears to be a move toward reducing expenditure and enhancing governance, it risks weakening democratic principles. If elections are held simultaneously, national issues could overshadow local concerns, diminishing the autonomy of states and local bodies. Furthermore, it would strip states of their authority over the conduct of elections. This approach could lead to an increase in centralized political power and open the door to authoritarian tendencies.

Potential Drawbacks:

Local issues and regional interests might take a backseat. As a result, citizens would lose the opportunity to question the government on fundamental issues during elections. Centralizing the election schedule would compromise the autonomy of state governments. If a government collapses mid-term, imposing President’s Rule or adjusting the term would go against the democratic spirit. It is essential to explain these dangers to the public and raise awareness.

Challenge to Federal Principles:

India is a federal country where powers are divided between the Centre and the states. Critics argue that this proposal undermines the autonomy of states and strengthens central dominance, contradicting the federal spirit embedded in the Constitution.

Stand of Political Parties:

Currently, when elections are held at different times, smaller parties can focus their resources and campaigns more effectively. But if all elections are held simultaneously, they will be forced to divide their resources, which may affect their electoral performance. Despite this, regional parties aligned with the BJP like the Telugu Desam Party and Jana Sena have supported the idea. However, national parties like the CPM, Congress, and several other regional parties have opposed it. The CPM has described it as an attempt at authoritarian centralization.

International Experiences:

In Sweden, national, regional, and municipal elections are held on the same day, and this has worked successfully. However, Sweden is a smaller country with a uniform political system. South Africa also conducts national and regional elections simultaneously. But unlike India, it does not have a diverse state-based federal structure. India, with its vast linguistic, cultural, and political diversity, cannot directly replicate these foreign models.

Safeguard India’s diversity La

“One Nation, One Election” poses a serious challenge to India’s parliamentary democracy. It must be recognized as a dangerous step toward centralization. Political parties and the public must engage in broad discussions on this issue. The public must be made aware that the real intention behind this proposal could be to establish an authoritarian regime. Everyone must stand united to resist it. It is our collective responsibility to safeguard India’s diversity and democratic strength at this crucial moment.

P.V. Kumaraswamy Reddy is a Social and Political Analyst

Courtesy: Counter Currents

The post “One Nation, One Election”: A Threat to Democracy and Federal Spirit appeared first on SabrangIndia.

One commonly heard statement is that – ‘when the Constitution was first formulated, when Indian democracy started, for the first 10-15 years there was one nation, there was one election’. However, the events of 1956 paint a different picture. Nehru’s dismissal of the Kerala government led to a by-election, marking a significant shift in the political landscape. While history shows that simultaneous elections were once the norm, the dissolution of governments in Kerala sparked midterm elections. In 1971, Indira Gandhi further separated Lok Sabha and Vidhan Sabha elections, setting a precedent for separate elections to be held since then. This historical context sheds light on the evolution of India’s electoral process over the years.

Now, when they say work comes to a standstill, as I said, model code doesn’t stop any work except new policy, new schemes. As elections are taking place in Delhi, tell me is your life here in Thrissur getting affected? Do you even know that an election is taking place? You would not know, even if the election was to take place in your neighboring constituency. It may be said, ‘look, elections are happening all the time’. It may be happening all the time, somewhere or the other, because India is a big country, but it is important to recognize that firstly, the impact of elections is localized to specific constituencies for a limited period of time and secondly, we have been doing multiphase elections (seven phases).

Previously, I defended the multiphase election system, but now I say that it is high time we revert to single phase elections for these reasons. The rationale behind conducting multiphase elections may not be widely understood, as Kerala has consistently held single-phase elections. However, Maharashtra, which previously conducted elections in a single phase, recently divided it into four phases, with only one phase held last month. This raises questions of consistency and integrity in the electoral process. Is this approach not contradictory and lacking in transparency?

If you wanted a simultaneous election, but where it used to be simultaneous you staggered them into four because it suited you. So, this proposal lacks sincerity. Now the only reason why we do multiphase elections is because we do an analysis of the booths (we have 1 million booths). There are some normal booths, some sensitive booths, some hyper sensitive booths. Hyper sensitive booths require more advanced security, sensitive ones require normal security, and normal booths can manage with policemen.

Now, paramilitary forces were introduced by Mr. T.N Seshan in the ’90s. Their availability used to be limited, we used to see whether the available forces could take care of all the sensitive booths, they could not. So, we had to recycle them. We used to circulate them from one booth to the second, to the third, to the fourth, with the same force so that it was used up to 5-7 times. Now, the experience has changed. These forces take four to five days to pack up and move and reach the new place and deploy, but the ‘gundas’ who used to capture booths travel in their swanky SUVs in 4 hours.

So, having multiple phases is proving to be counterproductive and more so specifically, in the age of social media, where in 3 minutes the country can be set on fire on the basis of a rumor and with the rise of artificial intelligence they can even create fake videos, fake rumors. Therefore, it is in our interest as well as in the interest of good elections, to compress the election and come out very quickly instead of prolonging it indefinitely, almost two and a half months, three months. We can do it in 32 days. I’ve mentioned in several articles, we can do it. Law requires 26 days, we can give 3-4 days extra for political parties to decide the candidates. But they don’t talk about it, they don’t even look at these proposals because it does not serve to fulfill their vested interests.

Now what is the Election Commission’s stand? For the Election Commission it is a brilliant idea. Why? Because the voter is the same wherever you go, whether it is Lok Sabha, Vidhan Sabha or Panchayat, voters are the same. Where you go to vote, the booths are the same, the people who set up those booths, the District Administration, are the same. Security operators, they are the same. Therefore, conveniently, we create a safe booth for you and instead of pressing one machine, you press three machines. So, we conduct elections once in 5 years and play golf for 5 years, but our convenience and our comfort cannot be the concern. Our job is to conduct elections wherever it is happening; if it is happening all the time, somewhere or the other, that’s our job. So, whose time are you trying to save we don’t understand.

When the proposal was referred to the Parliamentary committee they also could not come to a conclusion, it went to Niti Ayog,who also suggested a two-phase election spanning two and a half years. Now, what is the big deal if you are not able to achieve one election in five years and you wanted two and a half years? What is the benefit? What is all this fuss about? Now, one thing which they have been saying is that in simultaneous elections, an argument is given, that the causes, the issues get mixed up. When you are voting for your Lok Sabha MP, you have some other issues in mind, like the Ukraine policy and what should be our policy in Gaza, and what should be our policy towards the Middle East and America. But when you’re voting for your Sarpanch, what is the issue before you? The drain in front of your house which is stinking and so when you are voting for your Sarpanch, would you be looking at Ukraine policy? You would only consider local issues, but, if you merge the elections, the local issues will get subsumed by the national issues, which is wrong. Because the issues cannot be allowed to be subsumed but they say– ‘…no no people are very intelligent, voters are very intelligent, look at Odisha, in the same election for Lok Sabha they voted one party and for Vidhan Sabha they voted another party’. Although, it was not the case this time as they voted for the same party. This is what they have argued.

There is a study which is stunning, done by an organization called IDFC Institute and they analyzed voting behavior over 16 years on 2,600 assembly constituencies over 16 elections and what did they find? That if there is a simultaneous election, the voters have a 77% chance of voting for the same party. But when it is staggered it comes down to 61% and additionally, if it is staggered by longer duration it changes the result totally– an example of which is Delhi. The Aam Aadmi Party got 67 out of 70 seats in the Vidhan Sabha election, 6 months later, in Lok Sabha, all seven seats went to the BJP. This has happened twice.So, to say, staggered elections are better because the local issues and the national issues do not get mixed up and to say that the voter is intelligent, he or she votes consciously for different levels, is wrong and this study proves the point.

The final aspect to consider is the committee led by former President Kovind. When the government faced challenges in reaching a consensus, they established a high-level committee with former President Kovind at the helm. It is important to note that involving a former President in political activities is ethically questionable. The President serves as the head of the country and should remain apolitical. By appointing him to lead a government committee, we risk compromising the integrity of the office.

It is naive to assume that simply because a former President is heading a committee, the public will unquestioningly support their recommendations. On the contrary, it is likely that there will be criticism.

What this committee did well and very quickly was talk to all political parties, they invited suggestions from the people, and they received 21,000 representations. This committee said that 80% of people supported simultaneous elections but the critics point out that this result is skewed because the proforma which was sent to the people was only in Hindi and English. If sent in Malayalam, the result would have been different. If sent in Tamil, Telugu, and Kannada, the result would have been different. Seeing it was sent only in English, the responses came only from the Hindi speaking people. Therefore, this is also not a great figure to talk about. Then, of the 47 political parties who responded, 32 supported simultaneous elections but were all from NDA. They supported it and all 15 parties opposed it because they belonged to the opposition. Our sources indicate that while the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) may publicly support certain actions, privately they may view them as an attack on federalism. For example, if the Kerala government and Chief Minister were to consider dissolving the assembly, this decision would ultimately be subject to approval by the Lok Sabha. If the Lok Sabha were to be dissolved, all other state assemblies would follow suit.Why should this happen? Consider the scenario of holding simultaneous elections – many of you may recall the Vajpayee government falling in just 13 days. If it happened once, it could happen again. If the Lok Sabha were to dissolve, would we then be required to hold elections for all 28 states simultaneously? Why should the well-being of individuals across the country be impacted by political events in Delhi, caused by a party’s betrayal or any other unforeseen circumstances?

As the saying goes– ‘Don’t try to repair something which is not broken’. Similarly, the system is working and if you tinker with it, chances are that you’ll probably create problems. You’ll break the system.

The bill currently under consideration includes references to five Constitutional Amendments. Specifically, I will be discussing Article 182A, which is a key addition to the legislation. This article states, “Notwithstanding anything contained in articles 83 and 172.” Article 83 pertains to the duration of the Lok Sabha, while Article 172 addresses the duration of a legislative assembly, both of which specify a term of five years. However, Article 182A introduces a new provision that states when the Lok Sabha is dissolved, all members will also be dissolved. This raises questions about the necessity and implications of such a provision.

Furthermore, despite being a high-level committee, what was the stance taken by this committee? The committee stated that when referring to simultaneous elections, they are specifically addressing the Lok Sabha and Vidhan Sabha elections, excluding Panchayats. This raises the question – what is the rationale behind this exclusion? If Panchayat elections are conducted separately, it no longer aligns with the concept of simultaneous elections. This deviation undermines the objective of streamlining the electoral process.

The second point raised is regarding the simultaneous holding of Parliament elections and Vidhan Sabha elections, while Panchayat elections are to be held separately after a period of 100 days. It is important to note that any election held after this 100-day period is considered a new and distinct election, necessitating a completely different set of arrangements.

Consider the sheer number of individuals involved in the electoral process – approximately 15 million government employees, school teachers, and junior staff members. Requiring them to participate in multiple elections within a short timeframe can lead to fatigue and inefficiency.

Have you ever served as a presiding officer or polling officer during an election? If so, would you be willing to undertake such duties again within a span of 300 days? The idea of simultaneous elections loses its appeal when elections are separated by such a significant time gap.

The committee tasked with examining this proposal was not given the opportunity to thoroughly evaluate its advantages and disadvantages. Instead, they were simply instructed to find a way to implement it. The recommended Constitutional Amendments and legal changes fail to address the concerns raised by critics, including the high costs and potential policy paralysis associated with the proposal.Numerous individuals, including writers, politicians, lawyers, and constitutional experts, have expressed reservations about the necessity of altering the current electoral system. The proposal, in its diluted form, lacks the moral authority needed to justify such sweeping changes.

But this kind of stubbornness is disturbing the Constitutional scheme of things, this is surely an attack on federalism of the country.The determination of your political future should be left in the hands of your state’s people, rather than being dictated by the central government. This principle forms the foundation of our democratic system. As this issue is brought before the Supreme Court, we remain hopeful that they will recognize any flaws in the proposed legislation. In 1973, the Supreme Court established the concept of the basic structure of the Constitution. This principle asserts that while the Constitution can be amended, certain fundamental elements cannot be altered. The basic structure is parliamentary system of election, not presidential election. The basic structure is federalism. The basic structure is secularism. These pillars of our democracy are essential and must be upheld, even in the face of parliamentary acts or constitutional amendments.

This article was first published on The AIDEM

The post The History and Politics of the “One Nation, One Election” Idea (Part 2) appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The origins of the ‘One Nation, One Election’ had begun with discussions about simultaneous election. This had gone on fir many years and even before Mr. Modi became the Prime Minister. He talked about the idea of holding simultaneous elections in a 2013 (BJP) party meeting, while addressing party workers.

But he was not the first to talk about this idea; in 2010 Mr. L.K. Advani had written about it and even earlier, a Law Commission Report had talked about it. And long long back, Mr. Vasant Sathe of the Congress party had talked about it. So, Mr. Modi actually only flagged the issue and significantly, he asked for a national debate on the subject and for arriving at a consensus.

Debate happened for 10 years, but consensus did not happen. The logical conclusion should have been if there is no consensus you should drop the idea. Then the government decided that even if there is no consensus we are going to push it down the throat of the nation and they brought this bill. They introduced the bill in Parliament which is going to be discussed soon. Which is what makes the subject very topical, although discussion on it has been going on for 11 years.

Now, originally when the Prime Minister talked about it, what are the things he had said? He said the cost of elections is so high and we have repeated elections and it becomes a very costly thing. The cost referred to here means two things– cost to the Election Commission or the government for managing the election, which is just about Rs 4,500 crore. This is nothing for a democracy of our size. We are the fifth largest economy in the world. The other is the cost of politicians with their campaign; in fact that is where the problem lies. There is a law prescribing a ceiling on election expenditure. You can’t spend more than the ceiling, which is revised from time to time.

For Vidhan Sabha it must be about 40 lakhs, but we know for fact that people are spending crores on every election. Whether Panchayat elections or Vidhan Sabha or Lok Sabha, they are spending crores in violation of the law. It has become so that only the rich people can contest. Poor people cannot contest elections anymore now.

One anomaly here is that while the law prescribes a ceiling on individual expenditure, there is no ceiling on expenditure by the political party. If I am a candidate and as a candidate I can’t spend more than 40 lakhs but my party can spend 40 crores on me, so what is the purpose of the ceiling? It gets defeated. So, I have been suggesting that if you are so conscious of the cost why don’t you put a ceiling on political party expenditure? The cost will come down drastically and instead of this long route of ‘One Nation, One Election’, we’ll have an easy solution. But that is not their intention.

Now, as I said initially they used to talk of simultaneous elections but later on they introduced the word ‘Nation’– ‘One Nation’. The moment you talk of nation, our patriotism gets aroused. So, for that purpose One Nation One Election. Now, India is a unique nation. It’s the most diverse country in the world, it’s a mini Commonwealth with 22 official languages. Here (at Thrissur) I was hearing Malayalam, yesterday in Chennai I was hearing Tamil, that is not what we hear in Delhi, we hear Hindi.

So, India is a mosaic of cultures, a mosaic of languages of all varieties and that is the beauty of India. America is a big country also, although it is one fourth of India in size, but from East coast to West Coast, it has the same language. Russia is huge, has 11 time zones, but the same language throughout. But here we have 22 official languages and hundreds of other recognized languages. Every major religion of the world we have in India.

The plurality of India is our asset, it is our unique aspect which we should be proud of and not disturb. But the attempt being made now with One Nation One Election is to carry out this very disturbance.. In fact, in one of my articles, I said that the next slogan will be ‘One Nation, One Political Party’, ‘One Nation, One Leader’. And why have elections every five years? Appoint leader for life. What is this– in the name of One Nation? One nation and many people, one nation and many languages, one nation many cultures– that was our national slogan all through and that is being played around with now and that’s very wrong.

The second reason given for one nation one election or simultaneous election proposal was that it leads to work paralysis, as the work (of the nation) comes to a standstill because of the Model Code. That is a lie. I will request all of you and as many of you who can, please download the Model Code of Conduct. It is 10-12 pages of small reading when you look at the overall functioning of the Election Commission. It does not stop anything, except two things– you cannot announce a new policy and you cannot make transfers after elections have been announced.

Now, you are talking only about a new policy, why is it that they say– because of this Model Code we cannot do public good? We cannot announce policies? Who stopped you from announcing new policies for 4 years and 11 months? Why is it that all the bright ideas for new policies come to your mind 2 weeks before elections? It’s totally illogical. So, nothing really stops.

In fact, when I was in the election commission we have repeatedly called ministers, along with the Cabinet Secretary Mr. Chandrashekhar, who was originally from Kerala. He used to say to please tell the ministries not to stop anything, because the model code doesn’t expect to stop anything, other than new schemes and official transfers. If you have to transfer, you can do it before but not after the elections have been announced.

The other thing or argument is about the party workers’ time. What is party workers’ time for? For electioneering. So, because of the election their work stops. What stops? Maybe the hate speech, maybe the polarization, all the kind of activities which they were doing and are not able to do. But elections are a great opportunity for them to polarize the country, they’re doing it regularly. The important thing is, the Prime Minister mentioned very clearly that when we’re talking of simultaneous elections, we’re talking of all three levels– Lok Sabha, Vidhan Sabha, and the Panchayat. But you would notice if you have been reading the newspapers and watching the media, the debate forgot about Panchayat and they were only talking of Lok Sabha and Vidhan Sabha.

How can you ignore Panchayats? Lok Sabha has 543 MPs, Vidhan Sabha all together have 4,120 MLAs, but Panchayats have 30 lakh members of Panchayat. That is the major part of democracy, how can you brush it aside? Constitutionally they are as important as Lok Sabha elections, but from the debate it disappeared.

Now, after the suggestion was made, a parliamentary committee went into it and they also talked of massive expenditure on Election, and about stoppage of the delivery of essential services. But there are some political leaders here, who would agree that our experience is that during elections, services improve. When an election is being held in the constituency they will make sure you get electricity nonstop. They may cut electricity in the neighboring District and transfer it to you. Everything will improve and to say that because of the election the service delivery gets affected is wrong; it improves and because of so many announcements and the freebies that come along with.

But along with this we should also note that when elections are staggered, it leads to more corruption because money is used in the elections. Unaccounted money, black money, distribution of liquor, etc. Casteism is also promoted; 70 years ago we hardly knew about caste, many people did not even know their caste, and now because of the election they know their sub caste and sub caste within sub caste. Everything they know because that is how the vote banks are created.Communalism also increases; you would have noticed, that close to election communalism increases to polarise the community.

There is a book which I have written– ‘Population Myth’, ‘Islam, Family Planning, and Politics in India’, and here is a small observation which I had made– ‘Are Muslims overtaking the Hindus?’; that is the slogan they are mouthing constantly – ‘you know the Muslims are going to overtake 80% of the people’, the Hindus are being made scared of 14% people. This is unique in the country, 80% of people are scared of 14%, a small segment of people. Every day they say, ‘these guys, they will kill you’, and it is leading to polarisation. Polarisation has become a winning electoral strategy.

Now, the arguments against– I was attending one meeting where Biju Janata Dal MP, Mahtab, made a very interesting statement. Now he is in the BJP; he said– ‘…have we asked the people? What do people want?’. He said, people love frequent elections. Why? Because for most poor people, this is the only power they have. At least because of the election the leaders come with folded hands to their door, otherwise we have seen how many times the MLAs and MPs go missing for 5 years, they don’t come back. People have to put posters in the streets– “missing, finder will get 50,000 Rupees”, because they never come back. But, at least on account of frequent elections of all kinds, they come back to your door. Therefore, free staggered elections actually is not a bad idea.

Now, the estimate of the 2019 election by the Center for Media Studies was Rupees 60,000 crores were spent by the political parties. Personally, I feel that this expenditure is not a bad idea, this is recycling of the politician’s money which goes to the poor, to the labourers, to the auto drivers, to the people who make posters. At least the money is being circulated instead of lying in trunks and suitcases of the politicians. And what is 60,000 crores? No big deal. In any case, I’ve told you that if you really want to reduce spending, that is to device ways and means to cut political party expenditure.

End of part 01. Part 02 to be published on 4 February 2025 

Full Speech is available on The AIDEM YouTube Channel

The Article was first published on The AIDEM

The post The History and Politics of the “One Nation One Election” Idea (Part 01) appeared first on SabrangIndia.

When the Constituent Assembly discussed Article 289 of the draft Constitution (corresponding Article 324 of the Constitution) dealing with the setting up of the Election Commission of India on June 15 and 16, 1949, such a proposal never came up.

Therefore, the said recommendation of the Kovind Commission and the in-principle acceptance of it by the Union cabinet headed by Prime Minister Narendra Modi is a clear violation of the legislative intent of the Constituent Assembly.

Ambedkar never envisaged ‘One Nation, One Election’ idea

It is worthwhile to go through the discussions that took place in the Constituent Assembly on June 15, 1949 after Dr B.R. Ambedkar moved Article 289 which, among others, provided that the superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of the electoral rolls for, and the conduct of all elections to the Parliament and to the legislature of every state would be vested in a body outside the Executive to be called the Election Commission.

Dr B.R. Ambedkar was deeply mindful of the situation when a bye-election might take place at any time.

He then stated that the Election Commission would be a permanent body with one man called the Chief Election Commissioner with a skeleton machinery at his disposal to conduct elections which he said “will generally take place at the end of five years”.

But he was deeply mindful of the situation when a bye-election might take place at any time, therefore he proceeded to add, “The assembly may be dissolved before its period of five years has expired. Consequently, the electoral rolls will have to be kept up to date all the time so that the new election may take place without any difficulty.

“It was, therefore, felt that having regard to these exigencies, it would be sufficient if there was permanently in session one officer to be called the Chief Election Commissioner, while when the elections are coming up, the President may further add to the machinery by appointing other members to the Election Commission.”

Quite clearly, Dr Ambedkar’s utterances in the Constituent Assembly that elections would generally take place at the end of five years and there would be the necessity of conducting another election within the five-year time frame in case an assembly got dissolved underlined his intent that in India simultaneous elections to assemblies could not be prescribed by the Constitution.

Shibbon Lala Saxena’s stand in the Constituent Assembly

Another distinguished member of the Constituent Assembly Shibbon Lal Saxena, while participating in the discussion on Article 289, referred to the point made by Dr Ambedkar that the Election Commission might not have adequate work after the conduct of elections and so it should have only Chief Election Commissioner and other commissioners would be appointed, if required, prior to the announcement of election schedules.

Saxena went on to say, “In our Constitution, all the elections will not synchronise but they will be at varying times in accordance with the vote of no-confidence passed in various legislatures and the consequent dissolution of the legislatures.”

Even before he articulated those thoughts he stated, “Our Constitution does not provide for a fixed four-year cycle like the one in the United States of America. The elections will probably be almost always going on in some province or the other.”

While noting that India would have about thirty provinces after the integration of states into the Indian Union he made it very clear that “our Constitution provides for the dissolution of the legislature when a non-confidence is passed” and presciently remarked, “So it is quite possible that the elections to the various legislatures in the province and the Centre will not be all concurrent.”

He forcefully observed, “Every time some election or other will be taking place somewhere.” Then he very prophetically said, “It may not be so in the very beginning or in the very first five or ten years. But after ten or twelve years, at every moment some elections in some province will be going on.”

“Therefore,” he said, “it will be far more economical and useful if a permanent Election Commission is appointed— not only the Chief Election Commissioner but three or five members of the commission who should be permanent and who should conduct the elections.”

He dispelled the notion that the Election Commission would be deficient in terms of work because, according to him, frequent elections would be conducted taking into account the exigencies of the situation that would arise following the premature dissolution of legislatures after the fall of the governments, among others, on the basis of passage of no-confidence motions against them.

Shibban Lal Saxena’s assertion in 1949 that “in our Constitution, all the elections will not synchronise” clearly reflected the legislative intent of the Constituent Assembly for not conducting elections simultaneously.

Shibban Lal Saxena’s assertion in 1949 that “in our Constitution all the elections will not synchronise” clearly reflected the legislative intent of the Constituent Assembly for not conducting elections, as accepted by Modi regime, simultaneously for the Lok Sabha and state assemblies.

It corresponded to the aforementioned statement of Dr Ambedkar who while stating that elections “will generally take place at the end of five years” was deeply conscious of the fact that a legislature might get dissolved before its mandated period of five years and it would necessitate an election.

R.K. Sidhwa’s stand

Another prominent member, R.K. Sidhwa, while speaking on the discussion on the Election Commission in the Constituent Assembly said, “We shall have now about 4,000 members in all the provinces and there will be bye-elections. Surely, every month there will be two or three elections— some will die, some will be promoted to high offices— some will go here and there.”

“In this Constituent Assembly,” he said, “during the short period we have had a number of bye-elections although we had nothing to do with them, but in the places from which they have come there have been a number of elections.”

He, therefore, stated that apart from necessity and fairness, the Election Commission should function to prepare a just electoral roll which often gets vitiated by those who put names in it in connivance with the Executive.

Describing the electoral roll as the principal thing in an election he appealed for establishing an impartial and independent Election Commission to deal with the situation necessitating the organisation of multiple elections.

The Election Commission should function to prepare a just electoral roll which often gets vitiated by those who put names in it in connivance with the Executive.

He did not pay heed to those who flagged that more expenses would be incurred for that purpose and pleaded for an Election Commission empowered to conduct elections with impartiality, fairness and integrity.

Culture of accountability getting eroded

Therefore, the Modi-led cabinet’s decision to accept in principle the recommendation of the Kovind Commission centered around the ‘One Nation, One Election’ scheme negates the legislative intent of the Constituent Assembly and the vision of Dr B.R. Ambedkar.

Such a recommendation is contrary to the ethos of parliamentary democracy defined in terms of the accountability of the government to the legislature. The sooner that recommendation is abandoned, the better it would be for the cause of upholding the ideal of accountability which has been severely eroded during the last ten years.

The author was Press Secretary to President of India late KR Narayanan.

Courtesy: Newsclick

The post Constituent Assembly Did Not Envision ‘One Nation, One Election’ appeared first on SabrangIndia.