Many citizens, media analysts, and the middle class are increasingly frustrated with the constant cycle of elections and ongoing campaigns across various regions. The idea of holding Lok Sabha and State Assembly elections simultaneously every five years, followed by local elections for panchayats and municipalities within 100 days, seems appealing as a remedy to the never-ending partisan disputes.
However, implementing reforms simply for the sake of change may not necessarily enhance our democracy and could potentially introduce new complexities into the existing challenges.
To align elections across all three tiers and implement simultaneous state and national elections, several constitutional amendments are required. Securing a two-thirds majority in both the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha for such sweeping changes is a daunting challenge.
Beyond the political hurdles in achieving consensus, it’s worth questioning the real advantages of such a Constitutional amendment. Advocates claim that simultaneous elections could reduce costs. While it’s true that combining Lok Sabha and Assembly elections might save some public funds, the savings are relatively modest.
For example, the Lok Sabha elections cost around Rs 6,500 crore in 2019 and Rs 10,000 crore in 2024. If State Assembly elections were held separately, an additional Rs 10,000 crore might be spent over a five-year period, roughly Rs 2,000 crore annually.
Conducting simultaneous elections could potentially increase costs by 25 per cent compared to a single Lok Sabha election, resulting in estimated savings of about Rs 7,500 crore over five years, or Rs 1,500 crore annually. However, considering the total daily expenditure of all governments in India is approximately Rs 20,000 crore, the potential savings from simultaneous elections are relatively minor.
Proponents argue that frequent elections consume excessive political and administrative resources, detracting from effective governance. They suggest that continuous election cycles foster short-term populism and unsustainable welfare schemes, which undermine long-term infrastructure development and service delivery.
Sound fiscal management and resource allocation are vital for fostering inclusive growth, reducing poverty, and creating opportunities for all. However, consolidating state and national elections could potentially exacerbate the problem of short-termism at the Union level, risking economic instability. Currently, separate elections provide voters the chance to assess and respond to policies over time.
For instance, Karnataka’s 2023 vote for immediate welfare measures led to a backlash against Congress in the subsequent Lok Sabha elections, signaling a desire for more balanced economic management. Similarly, despite Congress’s success in Telangana with short-term promises, it struggled in Lok Sabha constituencies soon after.
This pattern of voter feedback seen in Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and Rajasthan shows that separate elections offer a vital mechanism for voters for prompt adjustments in policy direction and maintaining a check on short-term political incentives.
The Kovind committee’s recommendation to shorten the term of state legislatures elected in midterm to align with Lok Sabha elections could lead to unintended negative outcomes. By tying the Assembly’s term to that of the Lok Sabha, stable, elected governments might face disruptions. In a diverse democracy like ours, with widespread poverty and low literacy, balancing short-term political pressures with the need for long-term economic development is already a complex challenge.
Governments must focus on infrastructure, investment, education, healthcare, and rule of law. Shortening Assembly terms might exacerbate the tendency for short-termism, where political parties prioritise immediate electoral gains over sustainable, future-oriented policies, thus undermining efforts to foster long-term growth and public welfare.
In the US, voters are accustomed to selecting from a wide array of officials on a single ballot, including the president, vice president, senators, congressmen, state governors, state legislators, mayors, local council members, prosecutors, and school board members. Despite the high level of partisanship, voters often do not uniformly support candidates from the same party across all positions. Instead, they tend to evaluate each candidate on their individual merits, exercising a nuanced and discerning approach to their choices.
In India, a significant majority of voters — approximately 85-90 per cent — tend to cast their ballots for the same political party across all levels of government, including Union, state, and local elections, often overlooking the individual merits of the candidates. Voter sentiment towards the state government plays a crucial role in this trend; when citizens are satisfied with the state administration, they are likely to support that party at all levels. Conversely, dissatisfaction with the state government often leads to a broader rejection of the party, affecting votes in every tier of governance.
Many voters lack a clear understanding of the distinct roles of different levels of government, often approaching MPs for issues like drinking water and MLAs for street lighting. This lack of role clarity can reduce elections to mere expressions of frustration rather than meaningful evaluations of governance. Instead of complicating matters further, what is needed is greater voter clarity and discernment.
Comprehensive reforms are essential to diminish the influence of corrupt money and voter inducements, to enhance accountability at the local government level, and to strengthen the connection between votes, taxes, and their real-world impacts. It’s crucial to make voters aware of who is responsible for what, and to ensure a fair and effective justice system that addresses both civil and criminal issues swiftly and impartially.
Simultaneous elections are not a cure-all solution. Instead, this moment should be used to carefully and objectively explore the challenges facing our democracy. It offers a chance to develop a thoughtful consensus on the essential reforms needed to address these issues effectively.
(The writer can be reached at dipakkurmiglpltd@gmail.com)
