Archives

A deeper look on how ‘One Nation, One Election’ is an affront to Federalism

The proposal of ‘One Nation, One Election’ (ONOE), approved recently by the Union Cabinet raises important questions on the encroachment on India’s federal polity. There is a reason why our Constitution makers had enlisted some separate powers to the states under the seventh schedule. ONOE virtually disregards these powers, proposes the hegemony of the Union, destroys the gains made in our evolving federalism over recent decades and brazenly violates Article 1 of the Constitution which states “India, that is, Bharat, is a Union of States”. It also disenfranchises our local self-government structure, formed by the 73rd and 74th Amendments, at its adolescent stage, reverses the limited gains made and snatches their voice.

The Constitution of India adopted a unique model of ‘federalism’, often referred to as ‘centralised federalism’ has uniquely evolved over the past seven decades, deepening democracy. Initially, India had a two-tier government, but since the 90s, a three-tier system has been in place, incorporating local self-government through Urban Local Bodies and Panchayats. The report on ONOE presses on the need for synchronization of all elections – State, Municipal, and Panchayats with the Lok Sabha elections. The suggested two-phase approach involves simultaneous elections for the House of People and State Legislative Assemblies, followed by Municipalities and Panchayats elections within 100 days. This is a disaster in making for India’s Federalism, which has been strengthened over the years.

According to the Association of Democratic Reforms (ADR), simultaneous elections for State Assemblies and the Lok Sabha have resulted in similar voting patterns, with major parties polling almost identical proportions of votes in 24 out of 31 instances since 1989. This suggests that the dominant national party at the Union level has an advantage in state elections as well. This highlights the potential influence of national parties on state-level elections when held concurrently with Lok Sabha elections.

Apart from these, there are two fresh reasons, based on the published HLC report, which points out that the federal spirit of our democratic process would be eclipsed.

First, it has a risk of making the State and local elections irrelevant, for national issues will tend to crowd out regional and local issues. Important issues in Assembly Elections gain national focus, through relentless media coverage, which gives the requisite perspective to people residing in other non-election-going states, about important regional issues, which may be similar to the issues in their own states. For instance, it is widely analysed that the Maratha agitation in Maharashtra for reservation is similar to the Patidar agitation for the same in Gujarat, and vice versa. Another instance is the Mhadei river conflict between Goa and Karnataka, which is played out in both states to varying degrees during state elections. Imagine, if these local issues are pushed to the periphery, by the high-decibel national issues, due to ONOE – who will lose out? The states.

And what would be the nature of discourse for the Municipal and Panchayat elections, if they are held simultaneously? No one will even speak about garbage disposal, pot-hole free roads or clean water! ONOE shall eventually also subsume the special Constitutional provisions of Autonomous Hill Development Councils/Development Councils in the Himalayan region states and the Northeast. This would be a travesty of decentralization.

Instead of putting the onus on the Prime Minister and the Union Council of Ministers who have started this new convention of vigorously campaigning in the state elections, thereby voluntarily losing time in developmental decision-making, the ONOE proposal sought to penalize the state government, regional parties and smaller local parties for they will be overshadowed by the high voltage national campaign.
Second, the HLC report proposes that in case a government is dissolved before completing its full term, a mid-term election should be held to establish a new government that will only serve for the remainder of the original term, not a full five-year term. This would often apply to states, which implies that the state will have to suffer the consequences simply because the Union wants a synchronized election. Moreover, it defeats the primary argument by the supporters of ONOE, that there would be lesser elections. We have witnessed in the recent past how the ruling party in the Union has used the lure of power, money, and threats of central investigative agencies to form their governments through the backdoor by dividing parties, particularly regional parties. Instead of reforming the Anti-Defection Law, of 1985, the ruling party is hell-bent on creating more such avenues to usurp power from a regional party, so that there is no mid-term election for a shorter period of term, in the state.

It is high time that our polity understands the depth and gravity of the ONOE proposal and rejects it to save the voice of India’s unique federal matrix.

Rachit Seth is the founder of ‘Policy Briefcase’. The views expressed are personal. He tweets at @rachitseth.

Budget will show if BJP has entirely embraced welfare politics

The July 23 Budget speech will be a litmus test on whether the BJP will change its policy at the Centre as well or will it take the requisite road to reform and fiscal consolidation

The diminished political capital of the Bharatiya Janta Party (BJP), after the Lok Sabha elections has forced it to tone down its rhetoric on the ‘freebie culture’ aka revdi, as infamously christened by Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Will the forthcoming Union Budget 2024-2025 reflect that policy change, just like it was visible in the recent announcements by its coalition government in Maharashtra, or will the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government resist the temptation to splurge? Will it bite the welfare bullet, or will the government at the Centre open the floodgates to keep its allies — the Telugu Desam Party (TDP) and the Janata Dal (United) (JD(U)) — happy?

Both 2024 and 2025 are crucial election years. There are four Assembly elections in 2024 — Maharashtra, Haryana, Jharkhand and Jammu and Kashmir, and all are critical for the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Then there are elections in Bihar and Delhi,in which the BJP fancies its chances to have a serious claim to power.

The Lok Sabha election results have forced the BJP to adopt an attitude towards welfare spending which is more akin to that of the Congress. Given that the five NYAY-25 guarantee agenda of the Congress gained some traction among certain sections like the youth, farmers, and women, the BJP-ruled states have unveiled a series of welfare measures aimed at wooing the voters ahead of the crucial Assembly polls.

The Maharashtra government announced a monthly allowance of ₹1,500 for women and three free cooking gas cylinders for poor households, among other benefits. Madhya Pradesh introduced a Budget that promises increased spending on agriculture, free hearse services for poor families, and increased funding for cow sheds. Similarly, Rajasthan’s BJP government increased the annual PM-KISAN disbursement to ₹8,000, benefiting nearly 7 million farmers. Haryana’s BJP government announced free bus rides for the poor, plots for backward communities, and special recruitment drives. This is in direct contravention to Modi’s repeated opposition to the ‘Revdi’ culture!

The July 23 Budget speech will be a litmus test on whether the BJP will change its policy at the Centre as well or will it take the requisite road to reform and fiscal consolidation.A snapshot of the spending on central schemes pegs spending that could be termed as ‘revdi’ at ₹5.8 lakh-crore or 12% of the total spending. This includes — ₹2 lakh-crore on food subsidy and free food grains transfer to 800 million beneficiaries, ₹ 60,000 crore on PM Kisan Samman Nidhi, ₹1,64,000 crore on fertiliser subsidy, and ₹ 75,021 crore on the newly announced PM Surya Ghar Muft Bijli Yojana, among other smaller schemes such as LED bulb distribution, income support scheme to farmers through cash transfers, and LPG subsidy (reduced price of domestic LPG cylinder few months before the elections).

The fact remains that the June 4 results were a resounding rebuke to the BJP policies which deepened economic inequality. It was a clear rejection of the manner of governance that sought to centralise, control, bulldoze, and even impinge upon the ethos of the Constitution.

Economics and politics cannot be seen in isolation. When the Congress promised ‘guarantees’ such as cash assistance, free LPG cylinders, and free bus rides for women ahead during the Karnataka elections, Modi said, “A country cannot be run like this…revdi culture is essentially eating away the resources of future generations. The BJP thinks for the next 25 years and doesn’t take shortcuts.”

Even before the Karnataka elections got over, in March, the Congress announced Rs 1,500 cash transfer for poor women in Madhya Pradesh. Following this the BJP government in the state also announced the same in June. But since the BJP was in power, its Ladli Behna Yojana could be implemented, which resulted in the BJP retaining power in the state, and the scheme being credited for its return. Similarly, in the Chhattisgarh and Rajasthan elections, the BJP was for forced to announce LPG cylinders for Rs 500, and financial assistance to married women and landless agricultural labourers. Now the announcements in Maharashtra and Haryana, and the adoption of this ‘Congress model’ have dented Modi’s claims of not taking shortcuts.

For the Union Budget, Modi will try to project that his government, albeit now a coalition, is following ‘business as usual’; that it is reform-oriented and works on fiscal prudence.
The only window of opportunity for large-scale spending would be the augmented dividends of ₹2.11 lakh-crore provided by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI). But the demands for special status and targeted packages by the TDP and the JD(U), along with the electoral pressure to provide aid to farmers, may puncture BJP’s economic conservatism.

The fact is, no government in India, can indulge in ignoring welfare programmes enshrined in the Constitution, as part of the Direct Principles of State Policy. The BJP has started a course correction in following the path of welfarism as seen in several BJP-ruled states. The Union Budget will show if the party has adopted the same stance at the national level.