Gita Gopinath backs simultaneous polls, flags logistical challenges

The concept of 'One Nation, One Election,' or simultaneous elections, has been a recurring theme in India's political discourse, gaining significant traction in recent years. The recent endorsement by Gita Gopinath, the First Deputy Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), to a Parliamentary panel, has brought this complex issue back into the spotlight, adding an international economic perspective to a largely domestic political and constitutional debate. Gopinath highlighted potential economic benefits such as reduced policy uncertainty, spurred economic activity, and more effective prioritisation of capital spending, while also acknowledging significant logistical challenges and an uncertain net cost impact.

Historically, India did indeed commence its democratic journey with simultaneous elections. The first four Lok Sabha elections (1952, 1957, 1962, and 1967) were held concurrently with State Assembly elections. This practice, however, gradually disintegrated due to various factors, including premature dissolution of some State Assemblies and the Lok Sabha itself, leading to separate election cycles. By 1971, with the dissolution of the Lok Sabha a year ahead of its scheduled term, the synchronized election system had largely ceased to exist. Over the decades, the demand for its revival has periodically resurfaced, primarily championed by the ruling party and various governmental bodies.

Several key stakeholders are involved in this debate. The **Government of India**, particularly through think tanks like **NITI Aayog** and the **Law Commission of India**, has been a strong proponent. Their arguments often centre on reducing the enormous expenditure on elections, easing the burden on administrative and security forces, and ensuring policy continuity by minimizing the impact of the Model Code of Conduct. The **Election Commission of India (ECI)**, the constitutional body responsible for conducting elections (under Article 324), acknowledges the logistical enormity of such an exercise but has stated its readiness to implement it if the necessary legal and constitutional framework is put in place. **Political parties** hold diverse views: the ruling party often supports it, citing governance benefits, while many opposition parties express concerns about federalism, the potential for regional issues to be overshadowed by national narratives, and the disadvantages for smaller parties in a simultaneous campaign. Academics, legal experts, and economists also contribute to the discourse, analyzing the potential economic, social, and political ramifications. Gita Gopinath, representing an international financial institution, adds a macro-economic stability perspective, emphasizing reduced policy uncertainty, which is crucial for investment and growth.

For India, the significance of simultaneous elections is multi-faceted. Economically, proponents argue it could lead to greater fiscal discipline and allow for sustained policy implementation without frequent interruptions caused by election cycles and the Model Code of Conduct. This could potentially attract more investment and boost economic growth, aligning with Gopinath's observations. Politically, it is argued that it would reduce 'election fatigue' among voters, improve governance by allowing governments to focus on development rather than perpetual campaigning, and save public funds. However, critics raise significant concerns. They argue that it undermines federalism by potentially forcing premature dissolution of state assemblies or extending their terms, thereby overriding the democratic mandate at the state level. There are also fears that national issues might overshadow local concerns, disadvantaging regional parties. The sheer logistical challenge of procuring millions of EVMs (Electronic Voting Machines) and VVPATs (Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trails), deploying security personnel, and training staff for such a massive exercise is immense.

Implementing simultaneous elections would necessitate substantial constitutional and legal amendments. Key constitutional provisions that would require alteration include: **Article 83(2)** and **Article 172(1)**, which define the five-year term of the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies, respectively. Amending these would be crucial to synchronize terms. **Article 85(1)** (President's power to summon, prorogue, and dissolve Lok Sabha) and **Article 174(1)** (Governor's similar powers for State Assemblies) would also need adjustments to accommodate the new framework. Furthermore, the provisions related to President's Rule under **Article 356**, which allows for the dismissal of state governments, would need to be re-examined to prevent the disruption of synchronized terms. The **Representation of the People Act, 1951**, which governs the conduct of elections, would also require extensive amendments. These changes would not only require a two-thirds majority in both Houses of Parliament but potentially also ratification by at least half of the state legislatures, depending on the nature of the amendments, given the federal structure of the Indian Constitution.

This debate links to broader themes of electoral reforms, governance efficiency, and the balance of power in a federal system. The future implications are significant. A high-level committee, chaired by former President Ram Nath Kovind, was recently constituted to explore the feasibility of 'One Nation, One Election.' Its recommendations will be crucial. Even with political will, achieving consensus across the political spectrum and overcoming the inherent constitutional and logistical hurdles will be a monumental task. The discussion will continue to weigh the benefits of stability and cost-saving against concerns for federalism, democratic accountability, and the practical challenges of implementation.