New Delhi: Former election commissioner, Ashok Lavasa, said the reasons cited by the government to push for simultaneous polls as merely “impressionistic” without any substantial data and debate.Writing in the Indian Express, he goes as far as to say, “There are more meaningful and substantive electoral reforms that need the urgent attention of Parliament. There are far more effective ways to bring about greater transparency in election-related expenditure than chasing the mechanical scheduling of elections. Yes, there might be a need to bring about more managerial efficiency in conducting elections but that might not need onerous constitutional amendments.”In the first official move in the direction of simultaneous elections, the Union government on September 2 issued a notification constituting a committee, led by former president Ram Nath Kovind, not only to “examine the issue” but also to “make recommendations for holding simultaneous elections in the country”. Instead of looking at the issue as requiring further research and consultation, the notification fully concludes that “in the national interest it is desirable to have simultaneous elections in the country”.The former election commissioner’s tenure at the Election Commission was cut short allegedly for his rulings against Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Union home minister Amit Shah in the run-up to the 2019 Lok Sabha polls. He had opposed five clean chits given by the poll body to Modi and Shah over alleged violations of the poll code. The Modi government removed him from the Election Commission in July 2020 even though he had two years of tenure left and was on track to become the next chief election commissioner (CEC) in April 2021, following the retirement of the then CEC Sunil Arora. It also emerged later that he was selected as a potential candidate for surveillance by Pegasus just weeks after his dissent at the Election Commission, according to leaked records of phone numbers.Lavasa, in his analytical piece for IE, looks at the three main reasons cited by the government in favour of its ‘one nation, one election’ and concludes that they are nothing more than “instinctive surmise(s) that cannot form a sufficient basis for taking a decision that has significant implications”.Ashok Lavasa. Photo: PTIThe government said holding frequent elections so far has resulted in massive expenditure, diversion of official machinery for election purposes, and disruption in developmental activity due to the Model Code of Conduct. Therefore, if simultaneous polls are held, the government notification said, all three of them can be tackled.Lavasa provides pointed rebuttals to each of these claims using data.Massive expenditureAccording to the official estimates, the 2014 Lok Sabha elections cost the exchequer Rs 4,000 crore, and the 2019 elections Rs 9,000 crore. Crunching the numbers, Lavasa says the government had spent about Rs 100 per voter on 91 crore electorate (2019 data).Assuming that the government has to spend Rs 200 per voter in the 2024 elections (double that of the 2019 elections), Lavasa says that would translate to about 10 paise per day per voter for a period of five years, which is the normal tenure of the Assembly or Parliament. This means a voter is spending about 10 paise per day to choose their elected representative to legislate for them for the period of five years.“I am sure the average person spends more on mobile calls per day,” says Lavasa, countering the logic of ‘massive expenditure’ pushed by the supporters of simultaneous elections.Also read: One Nation, One Election: A Poor Argument for Cost Savings and the Need for Increased Poll SpendingIf there’s anything that should worry the country, Lavasa writes, is the informal amount of money spent by the political parties in “buying” voters. It is estimated that candidates and their parties spend at least Rs 50,000 crore an election to lure voters.“There is no indication that money informally spent in ‘buying’ votes is being targeted through the so-called reforms. Isn’t that the main malaise?” the former election commissioner asks.He also says, “So far, there has been no analysis on total public expenditure incurred on the conduct of Lok Sabha and Vidhan Sabha elections separately or together and the expected savings in the event of simultaneous polls.”Diversion of official machinery Lavasa also points out that there is no research or explanation yet on how far the so-called diversion of government officials for election purposes is “detrimental or undesirable”.Even assuming that it is, Lavasa says, in a five-year duration, officials of a particular state would have to spend a maximum of 120 days – 60 days each for assembly and parliament elections. In the case of security personnel, he says, elections are also considered part of their “essential duties” unlike civilian staff.Election officials carry EVM and VVPAT machines and other equipment ahead of the seventh and last phase of Lok Sabha polls, in Patiala, Saturday, May 18, 2019. Photo: PTI“Our system is built on utilising the services of full-time public officials for occasional activities such as Census and elections, which are considered a national duty and for which it would be counterproductive to have a permanent cadre,” he adds.Disruption of development work On the criticism that development work gets disrupted due to frequent elections, Lavasa says it is a bit of a stretch. He points out that the Model Code of Conduct does not prevent the government from implementing ongoing schemes, disbursing money for routine expenditure, and spending on any emergency. All it does, he says, is to prevent the government from a “certain category of expenditure” to ensure there is a level playing field between the ruling party and the opposition.The “certain category of expenditure” – which Lavasa refers to – includes the announcement of new welfare schemes and any other way of spending by the government which could give the ruling party an unfair advantage over the opposition.He also goes on to say that given Indian federal polity, an election in one state should not preoccupy the voters and political leaders from another state. “How do elections in Nagaland affect the administrative functioning in Tamil Nadu or how do elections in Haryana concern the voters in Kerala?” he asks pointedly.However, the “centralisation of politics”, which has been characteristic of Indian politics in the last few decades, has undermined this federal polity, with national leaders of parties and government campaigning in local and state elections.“However, if party leadership is obsessed with campaigning in every state and would not like local leadership to manage state-level campaigns, it would see every election as affecting its functioning,” Lavasa observes.To cite an example of this phenomenon, Prime Minister Narendra Modi had donned the role of chief campaigner for the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in the recently held Karnataka Assembly election. He had addressed 19 rallies and six road shows in the run-up to the elections, where the Congress emerged victorious. Karnataka is one state where Modi has spent the longest time in any year since he became prime minister in 2014. In fact, the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) is accused of being perpetually in campaign mode, with Union ministers and state ministers sent out to poll-bound states for canvassing.Also read: The Cost to the Nation of a Perpetually Campaigning Prime Minister“Simultaneous elections would further diminish the focus on elected local bodies and turn them into nondescript representatives of their central leadership rather than effective representatives of local voters,” Lavasa argues.The former election commissioner also faulted the government’s view that since simultaneous elections were held for the first 15 years (1951-52 to 1967) after Independence, the same should be replicated even now. “This simultaneity for 15 years was without any specific provision in the constitution to this effect. The founders of Indian democracy did not think it necessary to straitjacket the conduct of elections as it may have been neither desirable nor possible to envisage the vicissitudes of politics,” he explains.In conclusion, he says, “Laying down that an election cannot be held before the five-year term to ensure simultaneity would amount to proscribing the liberty to express lack of confidence in an elected government or resign en masse from the ruling party. Imposing such limits on free political behaviour would muzzle the democratic functioning of political parties which are central to any democracy.”
