Where is freedom of voting under “One-nation, one-election”?

Whenever there is an election, issues such as Nota, voter turn-out, moral code of conduct, rolling out of freebies, poll manifestos of political parties, and the background of candidates come up. The recent Assembly elections in Bihar brought to the fore the discrepancies in Special Intensive Revision (SIR), which resulted in the deletion of names of lakhs of “eligible” voters.

It also popped up the question of how Model Code of Conduct (MCC) can be circumvented to influence the election results through cash transfers to women before the announcement of Bihar poll schedule.

The controversy over SIR must be seen in the backdrop of the proposed legislation for conduct of simultaneous elections to Lok Sabha and State Assemblies under “One-nation, one-election.”

It is important to assess how the freedom of voting works vis-à-vis ‘one election’, especially with regard to how the voters exercise their franchise freely, under no pressure or inducement whatsoever.

The Central government argued in the Supreme Court on November 6 that the ‘right to vote’ in an election is different from the ‘freedom of voting’ and stressed that while one is a mere statutory right, the other is a part of freedom of speech and expression. It is argued that the freedom of voting includes the freedom of expression and the freedom to choose the NOTA option as well.

When elections to both the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies take place in one go, the very freedom of the voters to choose the party of their choice is apparently restricted. That is, they will not have the choice to see the performance of the Central government or the State government and evaluate them as the terms of Lok Sabha and the State Assembly will run simultaneously. The voters will not have the option to see the campaign and manifestoes of the different parties at different times to make a sound decision. It will be chaotic for voters to make a fair decision, which is vital for freedom of voting.

Secondly, there are high chances that voters may be reluctant to back a particular party for both Lok Sabha and Assembly and may prefer to stay out. Furthermore, simultaneous elections will also give rise to “vote chori”, leading to snatching of the freedom to vote that ostensibly will result in a single-party rule across the country. The conduct of simultaneous elections thus infringes both the right to vote and the freedom of voting.

On the other hand, the candidates will also not have much to add to draw a fine line between the local, state and national issues. The campaigns, including public meetings, will have repetitive messages with a mix of local and national issues. Such a scenario will be disadvantageous to the regional and local parties, leaving the voters with no choice but to go with the party ruling at the Centre.

In this sense, synchronised elections will not give much scope to the people to make their choice through the right to vote. When the simultaneous elections were held in the first four general elections in 1951, 1957, 1962 and 1967, it was the Congress that won the mandate at the Centre and in most of the States.

The whole concept of “one election” will be challenging. Today’s elections are more significant than those held in the early years of Indian democracy. Just like peer pressure, the voters will feel the “same (double-engine) government” pressure, leaving no room for their freedom of choice. No doubt, this exercise can cut down financial burden on the government exchequer and preclude implementation of MCC several times. However, it will increase competition among the parties and put pressure on them to win the elections by “hook or crook.” This again is another way of curtailing the freedom of voting.

Since “one election” presumably encourages a single government, this will automatically defeat the very purpose of freedom of voting. Moreover, simultaneous elections will reduce people’s engagement in debates and change their voting pattern. That is, if people do not like the performance of a government of a particular party they chose at the state or central level last time, then they can vote for another party to form the government next time but this is not possible when the elections are conducted simultaneously. This will diminish their freedom of voting.

Nonetheless, if and when the legislation on “one-nation, one-election” is enacted, the government can conduct the simultaneous elections by streamlining the election process by deploying the right machinery and laying out comprehensive rules. To avoid a situation like Bihar where beneficiary transfer before the announcement of poll schedule played a favourable role in the poll outcome in favour of the ruling dispensation, it is imperative to implement the Model Code of Conduct six months prior to the announcement of elections. The government should also ensure the pivotal role of political diversity in our democracy and see that it is not compromised in the simultaneous elections.