ONOE? Oh no..!

Strong regional parties force national ones to heed regional aspirations

Alok Tiwari

One Nation One Election (ONOE) has been one of the pet issues of Prime Minister Narendra Modi. He has been underlining the need to have simultaneous elections to Lok Sabha and all the state assemblies once every five years. This has led last year to setting up of a high-level committee chaired by former President Ram Nath Kovind to examine the issue. It had token representation of opposition by way of Congress’s Adhir Ranjan Choudhury who promptly withdrew saying the terms of reference of the committee all but guarantee the outcome. That is usually the case with all government committees. They are set up to create a façade of deliberation when a decision has already been made. Now the committee has invited opinion from public. While opinions submitted may not count for much, this is a good time to ponder over the issue that has far reaching ramifications.

Modi has been framing it in terms of heavy cost of elections and the burdens they cast on state resources. It is true Indian elections are expensive, we do have the largest electorate in the world. They also are on all the time with a bunch of states going to polls every year. This means the political parties are constantly in election mode and hence cannot focus on governance. On the face of it, this makes sense.

Modi’s opponents see this as another attempt to capitalize on his charisma. While BJP has romped home comfortably in the general elections under Modi, its record in state elections has been mixed. The recent success in Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, and Rajasthan notwithstanding, the party has had to suffer some humiliating defeats too in West Bengal, Punjab, Karnataka, and Delhi. It has also found it difficult to make inroads in South India, except Karnataka, and Odisha. The party hopes that if general and state elections are held together, the Modi factor will smother regional issues and help the party do better in states as well.

This may or may not happen. However, having all elections together is undesirable for other reasons that have nothing to do with fortunes of a particular party. Since 1952, when independent India held her first elections, both elections were held together. This was natural as both election cycles commenced at the same time. This continued for 15 years but then the cycles moved apart. This was because some states held mid-term elections because of political instability or having their governments dismissed.

The possibility of that coming back remains. In fact, we are living in an era of extraordinary political stability. The elections recently have been pretty one-sided not just at the Centre but also in states. The winning party has more or less swept the polls. It is far from guaranteed that this era will continue. If we have hung parliament and assemblies again, severe difficulties will arise if Constitution mandates simultaneous elections to both.

What happens if no party can form government in a state? Will it remain under President’s rule until next elections are due or will it hold a midterm election to resolve the impasse but for only the remaining term of the assembly? The first option will kill democracy in the state while second will just take us back to square one. And what happens if Centre itself sees instability and that too, as is likely, early in a new Parliament’s term? Will the Prime Minister have no power to dissolve the Lok Sabha and go for fresh elections? Or will such elections again be for a truncated term because the next ones will have to align with main election cycle? Such scenarios have unfolded not very long ago at the Centre as well as states.

There can be options to deal with them but in one way or another they will see a massive erosion of states’ sovereignty and autonomy. This is hardly a good omen for the country. Besides even state elections are an opportunity for people and parties to raise subjects that government might be wanting to avoid such as farmers’ demands, corruption, inflation, or lack of jobs.

Another consequence of simultaneous elections will be diminishing of regional parties. While Indian electorate has been discerning enough to vote differently in national and state elections, simultaneous elections are direct attempt to marginalize regional issues. National elections are fought on big issues that are increasingly emotive ones. A party that can build a national narrative and project one issue or one leader will have a massive advantage.

State elections are more about bread-and-butter questions. There are some who see regional parties as a nuisance. However, in a diverse country like India, they have a vital role in voicing regional aspirations. At a time when national opposition party Congress is in particularly weakened state, strong regional parties have kept the ruling party from going berserk. Anything that weakens them will weaken democracy itself. While national elections are fought on national issues, governments get to take myriad decisions every day on things that never come up in campaigning. A party that has ears close to ground is likely to run a more responsive government. Strong regional parties force the national parties also to heed regional aspirations to stay relevant.

Finally, BJP itself needs to be vary. Today they have a leader with pan-India appeal in Modi and far more resources than others. But what after him? Such changes are for long term that outlast individual leaders. Not long ago, BJP itself boasted of a galaxy of leaders who could all be PM candidate. Today there is only one. This is not to say another cannot emerge, but it is equally likely that such a leader may emerge in some other party. It will not take long for the shoe to be on the other foot. It might be too late to take a step back then.

This column was published in Lokmat Times on Jan 10, 2024