The Fantasy Of ‘One Nation One Election’ | Vijay Kumar

The decision of the Union Cabinet to implement One Nation One Election (ONOE) has grave implications for the Indian democracy, particularly its federal structure – not in its form, but in its spirit.

Prima Minister, Narendra Modi, has shown exceptional dedication and commitment to those promises which have the potential to communalise the social structure and accentuate the centralizing and authoritarian tendencies. But all other promises made by Modi, such as he would bring all Black Money stashed abroad back in the country, doubling of farmer’s income in five years – a promise made in 2017, and host of other promises remain mere promise.

Federalism has been declared as a facet of Basic Structure of the Constitution in more than one case by the Supreme Court. The form of federalism, however, remains intact, as distribution of power between Central Government and State Government under Articles 245, 246 read with VII Schedule of the Constitution is not going to be affected. Therefore, in my view, challenge to the constitutional validity of ONOE on the ground of negation of federalism may or may not succeed, given the inconsistent and unpredictable approach of the Supreme Court. For instance, doing away of the requirement of domicile for Rajya Sabha election was upheld by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court by repealing the argument anchored on the ground of negation of federalism in Kuldip Nayar case (2006). Since the form of federalism is not going to be impacted, uncertainty looms large on the prospect of ONOE, in the event of amendment being carried out by special majority of 2/3rd in both Houses of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha. But the federalism, as a concept or as an idea, would be mutilated.

The first hurdle of implementing ONOE is passing the constitutional amendment by special majority. As Modi Government does not have even simple majority on its own, and well short of 2/3rd majority even with the help of its Allies, it would be tall order for amendment to be carried out.

India is a bewilderingly diverse country. Indian Constitution celebrates this diversity by envisaging multi-tired and multi-levelled democracy, ONOE, for a country known for it’s mind-boggling diversities will sound death knell for the spirit of federalism - indeed democracy.

One of the reasons for democracy taking root in India is undoubtedly a federal structure inherent in constitutional design. Federalism does not mean merely division of power between federal government and state governments; it is a vital mechanism for diffusion of democracy satisfying the local aspirations and also operating as an instrument for check and balance, and thereby minimize, if not eliminate, the abuse of power.

ONOE will turn the federal structure topsy-turvy. Our Constitution clearly contemplates the different governments at the Centre as well as the States. Federalism is more responsive to the political choice asserted at local level, and thus enables regional parties to flourish in their regions. ONOE will be deathblow for regional parties. Once regional party is destroyed, the political aspirations of local people will not find for any avenue for effective and meaningful expression.

ONOE will rudely disfigure the identity of the Constitution by converting its federal character into unitary government – again, not in form, but in its essence. Unitary form of the government is feasible only in small and homogenous countries. In a vast country, known for its diversities, federal arrangement is more conducive for democracy. No wonder, geographically big countries, like US, Canada and Australia have federal model. Similarly, the country known for multi-culturalism and pluralism can be governed only through federal mechanism. Even European countries, despite small population and size and relatively homogenous social structure, have one or other kind of federal arrangements. Even unitary country like England, by-polls and snap-elections are common.

ONOE has inbuilt centralizing tendency and is intended to kill political aspirations at local level. The heterogeneity of Indian society desiderates separate election for the Parliament and State Assemblies. The rise of regional parties in last 50 years has gradually led to the emergence of coalition government at the Centre since 1990 except between 2014 and 2014. The coalition government,comprising of numerous regional parties, has ensured the democratic accountability through responsive governance. ONOE, on the contrary, will pave the way for emergence of strong party and majoritarian government with the potential to emasculate federalism and democracy.

The election is a single biggest means for bestowing the legitimacy of democratic government and secure its accountability. More the election, more responsive and accountable would be the government. It is regular election that goads peoples’ representative to remain in touch with voters. The long duration of five years would only deepen the gulf between the elected and electorate, and that would be apocalyptic for democratic accountability. Therefore, democracy, the most basic of all the basic features of the Constitution would become first casualty with ONOE.

Two reasons furnished in support of ONOE are that it will reduce the expenses and will insulate the government from policy paralysis on account of regular elections. Both the reasons are hollow and deceptive. There cannot be any trade-off between democracy and federalism, on the one hand, and expenses incurred in conducting elections, on the other hand. The raising of bugaboo of expense in conducting the election by the government which has drastically reduced the corporate tax in favour of rich and unabashedly helping two big business houses is an exercise in hypocrisy, duplicity and sophistry.

So far policy paralysis is concerned, the same is result of erosion of independence and credibility of the institutions. If the institution remains independent, robust and efficient, there will not be any kind of governance deficit on account of periodic elections. Modi government, like earlier Indira Gandhi government, has destroyed the institutions and made it subservient to its own agenda. There has been numerous instances of political stalemates in European countries and the government are not formed for months on end, and yet, governance never became casualty because institution functioned in vigorous manner. Therefore, what is required is autonomous and creditable institutions rather than absurdity of ONOE.

The ONOE is another instance of whimsical unilateralism of Modi. He has visceral hatred for consensus and thorough debates and deliberations. ONOE, as an idea, needs deeper and defused deliberations with all stakeholders and honest and genuine efforts should have been preceded to evolve consensus

The only redeeming features, I can discern from ONOE, is that toxic atmosphere generated by venomous speeches, spare-headed by none other than Prime Minister Modi himself, at the time of every election would become one time phenomenon in five years. But that small gain is merely flea-bite compared to everlasting damage to democracy.

(Author: Vijay Kumar, Senior Advocate and author of a recent book The Theory of Basic Structure: Saviour of The Constitution and Democracy)