The Perils of ‘One Nation, One Election’ and the Erosion of Democratic Pluralism

Dipak Kurmi

(The writer can be reached at dipakkurmiglpltd@gmail.com.)

During a 75-minute media interaction on March 16, Chief Election Commissioner Rajiv Kumar, accompanied by the newly-appointed Election Commissioners Gyanesh Kumar and Sukhbir Singh Sandhu, along with other officials, addressed a query regarding the extended span of seven phases for the upcoming polls. This prolonged schedule, spanning from April 19 to June 1, has been alleged to favor the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). In response, Mr. Kumar explained that the logistics involved in repositioning the Central Armed Police Forces across the nation, where voting is scheduled to occur, necessitate this extended timeframe for the electoral process.

 Interestingly, the inquiry regarding the specific count of Central Armed Police Forces deployed for electoral responsibilities, as well as the locations deemed particularly sensitive, failed to arise. This oversight is rather unexpected, considering the pivotal role these forces play in ensuring the integrity and security of the electoral process, particularly in areas marred by potential unrest or heightened tensions. The deployment figures and identification of such sensitive zones would have shed light on the meticulous planning and precautionary measures undertaken to safeguard the democratic exercise of voting across the nation.  The idea of a “One Nation, One Election” proposed by a committee led by former President Ram Nath Kovind and sent to President Droupadi Murmu on March 14th raises significant logistical challenges. If conducting elections for the existing 543 Lok Sabha seats and four state assemblies is already a massive undertaking, involving extensive security preparations, over 10 lakh polling booths, more than five lakh electronic voting machines (EVMs), and tens of thousands of personnel responsible for voter identification, signature verification, and ballot casting across seven phases spanning six weeks, then synchronising elections for an expanded Lok Sabha with 800 seats and assemblies across all 28 states and eight Union Territories would be a herculean task of unprecedented proportions.

With a current electorate of 968 million voters, conducting a nationwide Lok Sabha election is already a gargantuan endeavour. Simultaneously coordinating Assembly elections in every state and Union Territory would exponentially amplify the complexity of the process, rendering it a logistical quagmire that would dwarf the intricacies of the Minotaur’s Maze. The sheer scale of the preparations, resources, and coordination required to orchestrate such a colossal exercise would be staggering, presenting a labyrinth of challenges that would test the limits of India’s electoral machinery.

The idea of holding simultaneous elections for Parliament and state assemblies has been a subject of debate in India. Proponents argue that it was successfully implemented from 1952 to 1967 without major issues, and with India’s experience of conducting elections over the past 70 years, it is a feasible proposition, regardless of the scale involved.

One of the driving forces behind Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s support for this idea is his penchant for grand spectacles. He envisions the sight of over a billion citizens exercising their franchise in a synchronised manner, akin to the precision and rhythm of the Republic Day parade contingents in the national capital. This vision resonates with his aesthetic sensibilities, which lean towards grandiose displays of national prowess.

However, critics contend that the staggered nature of state assembly elections serves as a necessary distraction in the country’s political calendar, preventing an excessive concentration of power and ensuring a healthy democratic discourse. They argue that the desire to simplify the electoral process should not overshadow the fundamental principles of democratic governance.

While the logistical convenience of simultaneous elections is understandable, the debate revolves around striking a balance between efficiency and safeguarding the democratic fabric of the nation. Ultimately, any decision on this matter must be carefully deliberated, taking into account the diverse perspectives and upholding the principles that have shaped India’s democratic journey.

Bigness has long been equated with majesty in the realm of politics. The notion of power and glory finds its roots in antiquity. The Roman rulers and soldiers considered themselves the masters of the known world. The ancient Chinese emperors, while their empire ended at the Great Wall, believed their domain was the epicentre of civilization. The Indian subcontinent has witnessed the rise of vast empires, from the Mauryas and Mughals to the British Raj. Yet, these empire-builders understood the immense diversity that existed within their realms—political, social, and geographical. Unity was not enforced through the might of a single sovereign but rather through a shared cultural thread that bound the land together. This unity was a delicate tapestry, woven from the strands of human solidarity and a common value system. It was not a unity born of strength and force, but one that stemmed from a collective consciousness.

The notion of a ‘civilizational moment’, a term that has gained widespread popularity among boastful Hindutva enthusiasts, particularly following the inauguration of the Ram Mandir in Ayodhya, constructed on the site of the demolished Babri Masjid, which is alleged to have been built upon the ruins of an earlier temple, is a manifestation of what has come to be known as muscular nationalism. This concept is devoid of any genuine civilizational value; it is a blatant display of nationalist muscle-flexing, stripped of any pretence.

The idea of “One Nation, One Election” carries an underlying totalitarian undercurrent that should not be overlooked. While the concept of a single national election day, where a billion citizens cast their votes, is touted as an expression of the nation’s will, it implies a dangerous assumption: that the will of such a vast population is homogeneous.

This notion stands in stark contrast to the cultural diversity that has been the bedrock of India’s unity for centuries. True diversity is not merely a kaleidoscope of costumes and arts, like a superficial display of variety. It is a celebration of contradictions—a clash of ideologies and ideas that allows for genuine political pluralism.

The pursuit of national unity by the BJP and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh is not rooted in this rich tapestry of diversity; instead, it seeks uniformity. This approach echoes the once-mighty Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), where diversity in cultural expressions was permitted, but only under the iron grip of the dictatorial Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU).

True political diversity thrives on the clash of ideas, not the imposition of a singular, monolithic ideology. The desire for “One Nation, One Election” risks paving the way for a leader to claim the endorsement and trust of a billion people, a dangerous step towards authoritarianism cloaked in the guise of national unity.

While the idea of “one nation, one election” may seem appealing from an organisational standpoint, we must be cautious about potential unintended consequences. Elections in a vibrant democracy are not mere administrative exercises; they are a celebration of the marketplace of ideas, where dissenting voices engage in a healthy tug-of-war. The proposed synchronised national and state-level polls could inadvertently foster an atmosphere of suppressed discourse, where the pursuit of artificial unity overrides the rich tapestry of diverse perspectives. A democracy thrives on the free exchange of conflicting viewpoints, not enforced conformity under the guise of efficiency. As we contemplate electoral reforms, we must strike a delicate balance between logistical streamlining and safeguarding the very essence of democratic pluralism that has fortified our nation’s foundations.

The concept of an independent India extends far beyond the mere establishment of a sovereign nation-state. It represents the emancipation of 1.4 billion individuals, each with the liberty to make their own choices and forge their own destinies. The freedom struggle was not merely a quest for an abstract notion called India, but a profound movement aimed at liberating the very people who breathe life into this land. It was a crusade to unleash the potential of every Indian, to free them from the shackles of oppression, and to enable them to chart their own paths, unencumbered by the constraints imposed by external forces. The true essence of independence lies in the empowerment of 1.4 billion souls, each with the inalienable right to shape their lives according to their own aspirations and visions.