While former CEC TS Krishnamurthy believes that simultaneous polls is a step forward for electoral democracy, former CEC SY Quraishi states that the concept is a blow to federalism.
An Expert Committee recently green-signalled the Central government’s push for conducting simultaneous polls for Parliament and state assemblies, suggesting amendments to the Constitution to facilitate the same.
While the panel was of the view that One Nation One Election would aid development and deepen democratic roots in the country, civil society and experts alike are divided on the move.
Bar & Bench’s Debayan Roy caught up with two former Chief Election Commissioners for their insights into the concept as well as what they feel about the report.
TS Krishnamurthy served as the 13th Chief Election Commissioner of India. His main assignment as CEC was to oversee the 2004 Lok Sabha elections. He had earlier served in the Election Commission of India as a commissioner since January 2000.
SY Quraishi served as the 17th Chief Election Commissioner of India. He was appointed as the CEC as the successor to Navin Chawla on July 30, 2010. He had also served as a Secretary in the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports.
Here is what they think of One Nation One Election. Edited excerpts follow.
Debayan Roy (DR): Did you ever think One Nation One Election would become a reality some day?
TS Krishnamurthy (TSK): Even when I was part of the Election Commission, this debate was very much on. Though I did not have any inkling as to when it would come, there were discussions and arguments both for and against. I used to say that in principle, both on economic and administrative grounds, it is better to have simultaneous elections, but politically it was not acceptable to all because they had their own apprehensions. I did not know if it would happen immediately, but I knew it would materialise at some point.
SY Quraishi (SYQ): This was first mooted in 2013-14, in fact when Mr Modi became the Prime Minister. He made a pitch for it, although it was not a new idea. He wanted a national debate and a national consensus, but there has been no consensus in the last 10 years. In the meanwhile, I have written several media articles, given both sides of the picture. There are certain good advantages to simultaneous elections, but there are many difficulties which I have always flagged.
The Parliamentary Committee, Niti Aayog and the Law Commission have said it will not be easy or simple. Now it was given to a High Powered Committee with a mandate of how to do it. They have come up with a solution, but there are lots of questions.
DR: Before getting into the report, what is your view on the composition of the expert panel members? Do you think it was fair?
TSK: I do not want to comment on that, because it involves the Election Commission, so whatever the government has done, we have to accept it.
SYQ: Personally, I was very upset and I feel it was not proper to get a former Rashtrapati involved in this. He is a perfect gentleman and a nice person. But he was an institution; and to make him a part of politics and such a Committee…Getting the President into this was not a good idea. I do not think it was the most brilliant possible committee. The Committee report now has to go to the Law Department, which will examine the pros and cons. If they have any honesty, they will do that.
DR: The document notes that 15 political parties have opposed the move. Tamil Nadu Election Commissioner V Palanikumar told the panel that it would dilute the focus on region-specific challenges and diminish the efficacy of local governance. What is your take?
TSK: In principle, I do not agree with these types of views. Even when we held simultaneous elections in some states like Odisha, the voters have shown that they can vote properly and they do not vote for the same party. They have voted for different parties and exercised choice on their own. So to say it will affect federal spirit of the Constituion or that local government elections will not be voted for by the voters in a free and impartial manner, I am not in a position to accept that.
SYQ: He is not the first one to make this point. In the last ten years, this is the main point that has been made, that it is a deliberate attack on federalism. The system of governance that we have is a Union of States, mind you. States have their politics, their own realities. So if the local politics dictates the fall of a government, there is some migration of MLAs here to there, what is to be done? Of course, they have attended to this problem, but what is the solution?