BRP Bhaskar
Gulf Today
The Election Commission, which has endorsed Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s idea of simultaneous elections to the Lok Sabha and the State Assemblies, has said it will be logically equipped to conduct such an exercise by September next year.
In the first national elections under the Constitution, held in 1951-52, polling was spread over several days but voters in all the states chose their representatives to the Lok Sabha and the Assembly at the same time.
However, stand-alone Assembly elections became necessary in Travancore-Cochin and Patiala and East Punjab States Union (Pepsu) in 1954 as the governments of the two states lost majority in the old houses and alternative governments could not be formed.
Before the second national elections in 1957 Travancore-Cochin and Pepsu became parts of Kerala and Punjab respectively following reorganisation of states in 1956. Once again, elections to the Lok Sabha and the assemblies were held simultaneously all over the country. Kerala created a sensation by voting the Communist Party of India to power.
In 1959 the Centre dismissed the Communist government and dissolved the Kerala Assembly. After a spell of President’s rule, fresh elections were held in the state in 1960. Since the new Assembly’s tenure would run until 1965, Kerala only voted for the Lok Sabha in the third national elections in 1962.
In 1965 Kerala threw up an Assembly which was too fractured to permit the formation of a government. It was, therefore, dissolved and the state placed under President’s rule. It voted for a new Assembly again at the time of the fourth national elections in 1967.
No party commanded a majority in several of the Assemblies elected that year. Most of the coalition governments that emerged collapsed soon, leading to dissolution of Assemblies and holding of fresh elections. As a result Assembly elections in many states got delinked from the Lok Sabha elections.
Prime Minister Indira Gandhi who had to rely on the support of some small parties after the Congress party split in the late 1960s, dissolved the Lok Sabha and ordered elections in 1971. Later, too, on a few occasions loss of majority by the government of the day led to premature dissolution of the Lok Sabha and holding of fresh elections.
As is clear from this narration, decoupling of Lok Sabha and Assembly elections was a consequence of the practice of parliamentary democracy. The system calls for a government which commands majority support in the legislature. Return to simultaneous elections will mean grant of a fixed tenure to the Lok Sabha and the State Assemblies. This may negate the constitutional principle of a council of ministers responsible to the legislature.
The only argument Modi has advanced in support of simultaneous polls is that it will reduce expenditure on elections. Cutting costs is certainly a good objective but the issue of elections is one in which democratic considerations must have precedence over financial factors.
The slogan “One nation, One election” raised by Modi’s supporters suggests that they view simultaneous elections as a means of promoting further centralisation of the polity in the guise of fostering national unity.
There is reason to suspect that Modi’s simultaneous elections project is a surreptitious attempt to switch from the parliamentary system to the presidential system which does not require the Executive to be responsible to the Legislature. The Constitution, as it now stands, does not permit such a switch.
The Election Commission’s claim of readiness to hold simultaneous elections is based simply on the availability of enough electronic voting machines. That cannot be a major consideration in a vital matter with a direct bearing on the future of the democratic system.
The parliamentary system has served the country fairly well in the past 66 years. It has provided for smooth changes of government both at the Centre and in the States. It has permitted parties of the Right, Left and the centre to come to power, alone or in alliance with others.
The gravest weakness of the system is the role of money and muscle power in elections. While in the opposition Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party was a strong advocate of poll reforms. Now that it is the biggest beneficiary of corporate donations, it remains silent on the issue.
Poll reforms remain an urgent necessity. Modi should address that issue instead of attempting to tinker with the parliamentary system. -- Gulf Today, Sharjah, November 7, 2017
Gulf Today
The Election Commission, which has endorsed Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s idea of simultaneous elections to the Lok Sabha and the State Assemblies, has said it will be logically equipped to conduct such an exercise by September next year.
In the first national elections under the Constitution, held in 1951-52, polling was spread over several days but voters in all the states chose their representatives to the Lok Sabha and the Assembly at the same time.
However, stand-alone Assembly elections became necessary in Travancore-Cochin and Patiala and East Punjab States Union (Pepsu) in 1954 as the governments of the two states lost majority in the old houses and alternative governments could not be formed.
Before the second national elections in 1957 Travancore-Cochin and Pepsu became parts of Kerala and Punjab respectively following reorganisation of states in 1956. Once again, elections to the Lok Sabha and the assemblies were held simultaneously all over the country. Kerala created a sensation by voting the Communist Party of India to power.
In 1959 the Centre dismissed the Communist government and dissolved the Kerala Assembly. After a spell of President’s rule, fresh elections were held in the state in 1960. Since the new Assembly’s tenure would run until 1965, Kerala only voted for the Lok Sabha in the third national elections in 1962.
In 1965 Kerala threw up an Assembly which was too fractured to permit the formation of a government. It was, therefore, dissolved and the state placed under President’s rule. It voted for a new Assembly again at the time of the fourth national elections in 1967.
No party commanded a majority in several of the Assemblies elected that year. Most of the coalition governments that emerged collapsed soon, leading to dissolution of Assemblies and holding of fresh elections. As a result Assembly elections in many states got delinked from the Lok Sabha elections.
Prime Minister Indira Gandhi who had to rely on the support of some small parties after the Congress party split in the late 1960s, dissolved the Lok Sabha and ordered elections in 1971. Later, too, on a few occasions loss of majority by the government of the day led to premature dissolution of the Lok Sabha and holding of fresh elections.
As is clear from this narration, decoupling of Lok Sabha and Assembly elections was a consequence of the practice of parliamentary democracy. The system calls for a government which commands majority support in the legislature. Return to simultaneous elections will mean grant of a fixed tenure to the Lok Sabha and the State Assemblies. This may negate the constitutional principle of a council of ministers responsible to the legislature.
The only argument Modi has advanced in support of simultaneous polls is that it will reduce expenditure on elections. Cutting costs is certainly a good objective but the issue of elections is one in which democratic considerations must have precedence over financial factors.
The slogan “One nation, One election” raised by Modi’s supporters suggests that they view simultaneous elections as a means of promoting further centralisation of the polity in the guise of fostering national unity.
There is reason to suspect that Modi’s simultaneous elections project is a surreptitious attempt to switch from the parliamentary system to the presidential system which does not require the Executive to be responsible to the Legislature. The Constitution, as it now stands, does not permit such a switch.
The Election Commission’s claim of readiness to hold simultaneous elections is based simply on the availability of enough electronic voting machines. That cannot be a major consideration in a vital matter with a direct bearing on the future of the democratic system.
The parliamentary system has served the country fairly well in the past 66 years. It has provided for smooth changes of government both at the Centre and in the States. It has permitted parties of the Right, Left and the centre to come to power, alone or in alliance with others.
The gravest weakness of the system is the role of money and muscle power in elections. While in the opposition Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party was a strong advocate of poll reforms. Now that it is the biggest beneficiary of corporate donations, it remains silent on the issue.
Poll reforms remain an urgent necessity. Modi should address that issue instead of attempting to tinker with the parliamentary system. -- Gulf Today, Sharjah, November 7, 2017
