P. Raman 
Spin dictators of the 21st century have invented ingenious methods to establish themselves in power. Tyyip Erdogan of Turkey in 2018 imposed a presidential system of government with more powers concentrating on him.
Narendra Modi, however, chose the more unobtrusive route of simultaneous elections to the Lok Sabha and state assemblies. A committee was appointed with former President Ram Nath Kovind as chairman to recommend the constitutional amendments needed to implement the proposal. It submitted the report in March well before the elections.
This was at a time when the Modi government was dreaming of winning ‘400 paar’ seats in the 18th general election in India – almost three-fourths and much more than two-thirds needed for necessary constitutional amendments for introducing simultaneous elections. Such a decisive victory, had it happened, could have made Modi an unassailable prime minister.
The ruling establishment was sure that the resultant political momentum might trigger deep fissures in opposition ranks and thus, help the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) get the constitutional approval of the majority of states. With such an overawing legislative support, Modi-Shah could have gained absolute powers – more than what Tayyip Erdogan’s presidential system had.
Look at the way the BJP brass, in the aftermath of the 2019 victory, bulldozed legislative business, like the Jammu and Kashmir bill for bifurcation of the state and abolition of Article 370. Even the Union cabinet was told of the bills barely 90 minutes before it was presented in the parliament on August 5, 2019. Only four people knew of the bills – not even Rajnath Singh.
Janata Dal (United) leader K.C. Tyagi admitted to the BBC that none of the NDA allies were aware of the bills. It was not included in that day’s agenda. Instead, the House was told to take it up as a special case and passed the same day.
Prior to that, there was also a massive midnight swoop of opposition leaders in Jammu and Kashmir, some of whom were put under house arrest.
A hundred companies of paramilitary troops were deployed in Kashmir and 38,000 kept ready at crucial points in what jurist A.G. Noorani called an operation ‘conceived in malice and executed in deceit’. And the Rashtrapati Bhawan gave assent to the bills within 72 hours of passage in the parliament.
Think of the ominous portents this entails. If Modi-Shah, with the support of 303 MPs in Lok Sabha could take to such political adventures as ‘Operation Kashmir’ with utmost secrecy and precision, NDA with ‘400 paar’ might have effortlessly superimposed dictatorial order without declaring formal dictatorship.
Under this scenario, such an all-powerful regime could restore the national judicial appointments commission by legislation and thus, remove the only stumbling block in its way. It could also reverse the Supreme Court restrictions on enforcement agencies.
Despite the electoral setback, one may wonder what made the Modi-Shah duo press ahead with the Kovind panel report. The advantages of this authoritarian project, however, far outweigh the risks.
Firstly, by converting the five-yearly elections into a single-strike contest, the Modi government could make the best use of its superior resources amassed over the years. It could turn the election more presidential and Modi-centric.
These are the areas where he could overshadow the Congress and regional parties and make it a straight ‘Modi vs. the rest’ contest. His ability for massive mobilisation and brute control over media will render the fight highly unequal. This will give him the ability to set his own agenda and force the rivals to respond to it.
Who can match the massive publicity blitzkrieg with electronic, print media and outdoor advertisements with imposing Modi portraits staring at you everywhere? Which party can match the BJP with its endless funding? Then there are Modi films and biopics hailing the hero and heaping scorn on others. Elections after a gap of five years will make the strike more effective and well targeted.
Second is the conflict of cult creation and frequent elections. Modi has been the worst victim of election fatigue. In BJP, votes are sought in his name. During every election – state assembly or Lok Sabha – he must address the maximum number of rallies and hold road shows. This is a big strain on the 74-year old leader.
But this cannot be avoided because cult promotion is also an essential part of the strong leader build-up. That is how the five-yearly elections held simultaneously to Lok Sabha and state assemblies will be a great relief for Modi and Shah.
The Kovind panel also has a concealed safety valve for the Prime Minister. Going by former finance minister P. Chidambaram’s interpretation, if the Lok Sabha is dissolved a month after the election of a state assembly, the latter would be forced to have another election to align with that of Parliament.
This will create an anomalous situation wherein opposition chief ministers and their MLAs will pressurise their leaders not to bring down the Union government. Otherwise, they would also be forced to undergo another election months after the earlier one. Thus, the Union leaders will be forced to take it to the brink in Parliament.
There is another highly pernicious consequence of the simultaneous elections. When a state government falls, say after two years, the MLAs will strive hard to avert the dissolution and loss of position for the rest of three years. The result – mass defections and horse-trading.
The fund-rich BJP, with a record of mass defections and toppling governments, will apparently be the gainer. The tenth schedule, which governs defections, has already been proved ineffective to check horse trading. Thus, the collapse of governments in states will be a golden opportunity for political operators to capture new states.
Is the present practice of separate elections as bad as the Kovind panel wants us to believe?
A functioning democracy is much more than holding elections every five years and wresting majority in legislatures. It has to be truly representative. Periodic elections without outside interference and with citizen participation are the essence of deliberative democracy.
Merging all elections – the Lok Sabha, state assemblies and over 250,000 village panchayats – together under a combined campaign every five years reduces democracy into a referendum over the PM. Or a tie between Modi and the rest. It invariably imposes another layer of centralisation. It undermines federalism and equates the interests of individual states with that of the prime minister.
Also read: One Nation, One Election, One Party, One Leader: Modi’s Plan Must Be Nipped Deep in the Bud
Every state, every panchayat has its own local problems which should be debated and voted on. These should not get overshadowed by a Modi vs. Rahul (or Mamata) question. The present system of standalone elections keeps the rulers on their toes and holds them responsive to public demands.
Under the proposed One Nation One Election (ONOE), rulers could make false promises during the month-long din and bustle and get away with them for the next five years.
Does the argument that ‘perpetual’ elections ‘throughout’ the year impeded government decisions and affected GDP growth fit, as claimed by the protagonists of ONOE? A closer look will reveal that this is due to a misleading interpretation of the model code of conduct.
When assembly elections are held for a few states, the MCC is confined to those states. The rest of the country could move ahead with government programmes.
In fact, more disruption will happen when the assembly is prematurely dissolved to make its term ‘simultaneous’ with that of the Lok Sabha. This will awfully erode the diversity, autonomy and plurality of the states, as well as the federal rights that the constitution ensures to the states.
Another argument in defence of simultaneous elections has been that it is ‘financially efficient’, though the Kovind panel report does not reveal any details of the savings to the government.
To begin with, democracy cannot be measured in terms of costs. Moreover, during the five years from 2019, the Union government spent just 0.09% of its total expenditure of Rs 37.35 lakh crore on elections – far less than what it spends on many of the 80 odd PM schemes.
The fear of ‘perpetual’ elections is largely caused by the centralisation of the election by the national parties, chiefly, the BJP. The main ruling party at the Union will strive hard to obliterate the regional parties, who will be left to respond to Modi’s denunciations and accusations.
The proposal for simultaneous elections to the Lok Sabha and state assemblies was first mooted by the Election Commission in 1982. However, the Congress government – so sure of Indira Gandhi’s grip over the voters – disfavoured the idea, as mentioned in Chapter X of the ECI annual report, 1983.
Against this, both BJP prime ministers – Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Narendra Modi – have strived hard to change the existing constitutional system in order to take advantage of their presumed popularity and establish themselves in power. The Vajpayee government had set up a commission in 2000 headed by M. Venkatasubbaiah to review the working of the Constitution.
It was in this background that home minister L.K. Advani pushed for a presidential system of government. This had evoked strong criticism by then President K.R. Narayanan.
The Venkatasubbaiah panel submitted its report too but the idea was finally dropped following criticism by the opposition.
P. Raman is a veteran journalist.