Does the world’s largest democracy really need so many elections? India consists of 29 states and 7 UTs of which 2 have assemblies. Therefore theoretically there could be 31 elections, in a span of 5 years, which essentially means the country will be doing little else except electioneering. This is what our Honourable PM and BJP say. But the political spectrum is divided over this issue.

The idea of simultaneous polls is not new. In 1951-52 the first General Election to the Lok Sabha was held simultaneously with State  Assemblies. This practice continued till the general election of 1967, after which it got disrupted due to premature dissolution of some state  Assemblies in 1968 and that of Lok Sabha in1970.

Simultaneous elections may call for prolonging or shortening the tenure of state or Centre as and when required, thus leading to a resultant turmoil which will be unimaginable with our current political system. The “one nation one election" idea may look good on paper but it’s against the federal spirit of our nation. As I said above, though concurrent elections were the norm in the past, I don’t think, there is any point in reopening it as it’s a closed chapter. Instead of this, the government should focus on many burning issues such as agrarian crisis, unemployment, water scarcity in Chennai and other places rather than pull a rabbit out of the hat. 

If it’s sincere, electoral reforms are the priority to some extent, because, the parties that are opposed to the idea feel that the saving on account of repeated polls wouldn’t be more than 5000 crores in five -year period. Again it is also felt that the present system has an advantage as they help in better decision making both at center and states. We have seen, Centre and States revised their policies midway on many occasions only because they were criticised during every election. GST is a major example, initially, it had many flaws but following repeated criticism during state elections, several corrections were made.

Another major issue that needs to be addressed is what if there is a fractured mandate in a state or at Centre? If such a government looses majority before the end of five years, will that government continue to exist without a numerical mandate for the remaining period? What if the government falls? Will there be a President’s rule for The remaining part of five years? 

When I have discussed with people who have in-depth knowledge in State Administration, they say that the purpose to prioritise such issues, is the best way to divide non-BJP parties and divert the attention of voters from real issues, as the debate for and against would continue without break until 2024, and the ruling party can use this issue with a claim that their government wanted to save not only money for the nation but wanted the voters to stand in queue only once in five years to form the government. As for as the proposal on the face of it ordinary people would say it's good one but it was because of opposition, it couldn’t be implemented.

A strong central government is welcome, but it shouldn’t have total control on finances to subdue alternate views of governance at the regional level. If the proposed idea is implemented, state issues will automatically be sidelined and it will weaken India’s federal structure. The priorities of States and Centre level governance are different and can be best addressed by the federal structure of the country and not by imposing from the “top” or the presidential form of administration.