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.

On May 23, after the ECI affidavit opposing the demand for public disclosure of the copies of Form 17C within 48 hours of the conclusion of polling went public, many questions were raised against the anti-transparency stance being taken by the constitutional authority. In the said affidavit, which was filed on Supreme Court in response to a plea filed by Association for Democratic Reforms, the ECI had stated that citizens had no legal right to claim data provided in Form 17C, which contains the statutory record of votes polled in a polling station. The Election Commission of India also alleged that there was no legal mandate that required them to put out any such data, and the data being put forth by them through the Voter Turnout App is on a voluntary basis.

Details of the affidavit can be read here.

The affidavit sparked a widespread debate amongst civil society citizens, who questioned the opaque process being adopted by the ECI in releasing the final voter turnout data after the conclusion of the polls as well as the unusually high revision of over 5 per cent in the voter turnout after long durations. It is notable that even in the face of growing apprehensions of the citizenry and filing of petitions seeking judicial intervention for data, the current ECI had not once addressed the issues through any conference.

The aforementioned issues were put forth by Sardesai to the two former election commissioners during a live show on India Today.

Can Form 17 C be released in the public domain?

Speaking on the ongoing elections and the issues being raised, Dr. Quraishi stated that the current election is one of the biggest elections with 15 million eligible voters, but the same have been marred by two major controversies- the inaction of the ECI on violation of the Model Code of Conduct by politicians and the question of numbers. Expressing his viewpoint on the demand for public disclosure on the data on final voter turnout, Dr. Quraishi called the ECI’s attempt to withhold the release of number of voters to be totally meaningless as the data that was essential is already in the public domain in the sense that the presiding officer is required to hand over Form 17 C to the candidates after the conclusion of the polling. It was his opinion that when the information being sought by the people of India was already in the public domain, what was the harm in releasing it for the public’s view?

Questioning the secrecy being maintained by the current poll panel over data that is not sacrosanct in nature, Dr. Quraishi highlighted that the same exercise has happened in the past as well.

It was Lavasa’s opinion that the data being sought by the people is very elementary data. Agreeing with the points put forth by Dr. Quraishi, Lavasa stated that ECI, being the custodian of the data, is in a position to release the data by making it comprehensible to the people. On the question of the legal right of the citizens to know, Lavasa stated that Form 17 C is mandatorily signed by the presiding officer and given to the candidate, resulting in the data already being seen by the officer, the polling agents and the candidates. On ECI’s claim that if the data sought is released in the public might result in chaos, Lavasa emphasised that when such data was released earlier, it came with an explanation that the data provided in Form 17 C only contained the number of votes cast in that particular booth and there was no confusion or chaos then.

Are the fears being expressed by people unfounded?

Emphasising on the importance of building trust and ensuring people’s faith in the ECI and its working, Lavasa stated that it was for the ECI to understand that its functioning is not solely dependent on Rules and Laws. There are so many things that the ECI does to reach out to people, to make things convenient to people and to facilitate an understanding amongst the citizens of India. As per Lavasa, the entire initiative of SVEEP (Systematic Voters’ Education and Electoral Participation), the flagship program of the ECI for voter education, was brought in during Dr. Quraishi’s tenure not because the poll panel was legally required but as an effort to educate the voters and win their trust. Highlighting the same, Lavasa then questioned the insistent refusal of the ECI in disclosing the data to the public that is already there to ease some of the anxiety that the citizens are feeling and re-build their trust.

Adding to this, Dr. Quraishi also mentioned that the whole controversy was totally avoidable as the data is already in the public domain. He further stated that all this secrecy by the ECI is harming the trust of the people in this constitutional authority, and that the constitutional authority should release the data immediately as there was never a reason to withhold it. As per his statement, all the debates regarding the data being changed will be rendered useless when this Form 17 C data is released as the numbers in the said form is what the EVM holds.

Should people be suspicious over the delay in release of data and the unusually high revision numbers?

Responding to this question, Dr. Quraishi pointed out that confusion has been created with regards to the data and the ECI itself is responsible for the same. Holding that the data is being demanded belongs to the public and is already in the public domain, Dr. Quraishi expressed displeasure over the revised data not being released the same evening or by early the next morning.

During the conversation, Dr. Quraishi stated “The ECI’s argument that this data is to be kept secret- secret from whom? And why? There is no reason for the data to be changed after so many days.”

Explaining the process of how this data is being generated in real time, Dr. Quraishi also highlighted how the data on number of voters is released to the ECI every two hours, who then updates the percentage of voter turnout in its App. Based on the fact that data on the voter turnout is being released to the public during the whole day, Dr. Quraishi demanded to know why the same cannot be done on conclusion of the polls.

Dr. Quraishi also pointed out that during his tenure, there used to be a press conference at the end of the day where our polling officers would mention the provisional polling percentage and clarify that the final figure will be released after a certain amount of hours, but this practice has been discontinued now.

Responding to the aspect of revision of data after a delay of more than a week, Lavasa observed that a delay in such cases, and to such an extent, is bound to create doubt. Lavasa then opined that it was only through transparency that any doubts in the mind of the public can be answered.

As per Lavasa, even if any discrepancy occurs when the data is made public and people raise questions on it, the same can be sorted out by the ECI by being open with the people and offering them explanations.

The complete show can be viewed here:

Related:

Glaring Mismatches in EVM Numbers Aggravate Concerns on ECI’s Poll Management

How safe is my vote? A detailed look back at the EVM-VVPAT controversy in India

VVPAT-EVM Verification: SC issues directions for fool-proofing EVM, sealing of EVMs & SLUs enabling runner-up candidate verification

Is the Indian EVM & VVPAT System free, fair, fit for elections or can it be manipulated?

The post Form 17 C data belongs to the public, must be released: Former CEC Dr. SY Quraishi and EC Ashok Lavasa to India Today appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The post ‘I am hopeful that prime minister will postpone the Budget’: Ex-Election Commissioner SY Quraishi appeared first on SabrangIndia.