My view on the ongoing discussion in India, about Synchronizing the Elections of all State Legislative Assemblies (Vidhan Sabhas) with Parliamentary (Lok Sabha) Elections (ie., General Elections)
1. The duration of the term of each elected state assembly (Vidhan Sabha) is five years.
2. The term of the directly elected house of the central government (Lok Sabha) is also a five-year term.
3. In the case of state governments, for various constitutionally provided for/accepted/recognized reasons, there can be a dissolution of the house prior to five years, leading to snap polls, or to 'Governor's rule', ...(usually) pending/until the date of the expected polls.
There are similar provisions at the level of the central government/Parliament, Lok Sabha, that could lead to snap polls or to 'President's rule'.
4. The timing of when to hold polls has evolved organically over the years according to this system, as a result of which some states have elections at the same time as the central government does, and many do not.
5. Of late, there seems to be much discussion regarding whether it would be a good idea to make it mandatory for all state governments and the centre to have simultaneous polls.
The primary reason being cited is the ease of carrying out elections from a point of view that perceives the nature of the electoral process as being mildly disruptive.
6. AS I SEE IT:
Making simultaneous elections mandatory will create a number of 'stalemate'-like situations, where a state could be thrown under governor's rule (ie., under the control of the central govt., but will not be the most robust version of our democracy) within months of an election, and it would then have to wait for five years for a democratic election to take place.
Technically, this could happen in all the states of the country.
One then needs to look into the other motivations or reasons that might exist, behind such a move:
a) Some might approach this from the point of view of the onus of the burden of the funding of elections, and of running a campaign. The government's role in the funding of an election is set to gain new meaning/s with the ongoing move towards Electoral Bonds and (possibly) the eventual State Funding of Elections (election expenditure of candidates and political parties) as a move towards avoiding corruption in politics.
b) If state and central elections are held simultaneously, those standing for elections to the centre might calculate that the candidates fighting the state assembly elections are likely to bear the burden of the cost of running a campaign, or vice versa), and this consideration might influence their stand on what the system ought to be.
c) One cannot rule out the role of the promptings of governmental entities who are partial to the idea of a "strong" central command for various reasons, and who might even cite strategic reasons to bring about such a situation. (Reasons could range from dealing with border issues, to a bid at a general overstepping of spheres of influence via 'legitimate' processes, to imagined preparations for a futuristic presidential or two-party system, many of which may be described as ill-advised 'novelties' at best).
d) It is possible that the move is merely to gain political mileage (or to make the gamble for political mileage) from a very short-term/immediate political point of view.
As far as the forthcoming elections go, a few states are scheduled to have elections later this year (2018), a few next year along with the general elections (2019), and there are varying years during which all the other states have their elections expected.
As of now, WITHOUT this mandatory clause (or expanded version of a piece of law) for simultaneous elections being brought in, various state governments are entitled to dissolve their houses to synchronize with the parliamentary elections currently scheduled for 2019 if they wish (Karnataka, ruled by the Congress, has just won the state a few months ago, I don't think the state would want an election, albeit clubbed with central elections, so soon).
Furthermore, I would strongly recommend against making the states that are supposed to go to the polls later this year hang in limbo till next year's central elections.
Even the central government is entitled to dissolve parliament.
If the central government chooses to do this by the end of this year (2018) when a few states are also expected to have elections, then, in the immediate context, the only thing that might work for the argument of expediency is that the few states that are supposed to go to the polls in 2019 along with the parliamentary elections also bring forward their elections this time (through the legitimate democratic processes).
In which case quite a few states and the centre could have simultaneous elections this time without imposing (intentionally or unintentionally), the kinds of upheavals that have been described above.
No comments:
Post a Comment