Simultaneous polls would 'subvert' democracy, federalism: Opposition parties Congress, AAP, TMC on 'One Nation, One Election'

While the Opposition slammed the idea, the ruling BJP, AIADMK, Biju Janata Dal (BJD), JD(U), Shiv Sena, and the Shiromani Akali Dal were some of the parties which supported the idea of 'One Nation, One Election'.

New Delhi: Opposition parties like the Congress, Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), CPI(M), TMC, DMK, and the Samajwadi Party opposed the idea of holding simultaneous polls in the country, alleging that such an exercise would undermine parliamentary democracy and federalism.

The ruling BJP, AIADMK, Biju Janata Dal (BJD), JD(U), Shiv Sena, and the Shiromani Akali Dal were some of the parties which supported the idea of 'One Nation, One Election'.

In its response before the Ram Nath Kovind panel, the Congress, in a written communique, opposed the idea, contending that implementing simultaneous elections would result in “substantial changes to the basic structure of the Constitution”.

The party asserted that it would go against the "guarantees of federalism" and "subvert the parliamentary democracy". It further stated that the "argument that cost of conducting elections are extremely high seems baseless” and “felt that people will be willing to consider this small amount as the cost of free and fair elections to uphold democracy”.

It also stated that "there is no place for the concept of simultaneous elections in a country that has adopted a Parliamentary system of government". The committee said it had requested for an interaction with Congress leaders in person. However, the party did not respond, the panel noted in its report.

The AAP said that implementation of simultaneous elections would undermine democracy, the basic structure of the Constitution, and the federal polity of the country. It argued that the proposal would "institutionalise a Presidential form of government which cannot be dislodged by a vote of no-confidence".

The Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) asked the committee to provide a working framework for simultaneous polls as it did not explicitly oppose idea.

The CPI(M), meanwhile, said the concept of holding simultaneous elections is "fundamentally anti-democratic and strikes at the root of the parliamentary democratic system as ordained in the Constitution".

The BJP, in its written response to and interaction with the panel, pointed out that simultaneous elections "worked seamlessly between 1952 to 1967". It also relied upon the subsequent recommendations from the Election Commission of India (ECI) and other reports to support the concern. It raised concerns like the loss of up to 800 days in five years due to the imposition of the Model Code of Conduct (MCC), adversely affecting developmental work and governance efficiency. It emphasised the economic burden of frequent elections, with States facing the MCC three-four times in five years and the diversion of security forces from crucial internal security duties.

The party proposed a unified electoral system with one voter ID card for all three tiers of government. It also underscored that one election for all bodies is in the national interest for economic, administrative, and democratic reasons.

The Biju Janata Dal (BJD), the ruling party of Odisha, conveyed its longstanding support for the idea, emphasising the fiscal strain and delays in governance caused by holding multiple elections at various levels and periods.

It contended that adopting the concept of the simultaneous elections would alleviate these difficulties, resulting in improved coordination and execution of developmental programmes while reinforcing cooperative federalism. Inspired by the possible benefits, it exhorted the committee to "take it to its logical conclusion".

In its response, the TMC disapproved of the concept of holding simultaneous elections and questioned the "constitutional and structural implications of One Nation, One Election". It claimed this would be against the federal structure of the Indian Constitution and would go against “basic electoral principles.”

It also contended that forcing the Vidhan Sabha to go for premature elections just for the sake of contemporaneity would be unconstitutional and ultimately lead to the suppression of state issues.