Simply a bad idea

If state and national elections are held together, important state leaders would be unable to challenge national leaders and their parties

In India foolish ideas rarely fade away. There is always someone willing to reiterate and revive them. That seems to be the case with the proposal state and national elections should be held simultaneously every five years. In terms of saving time and money it makes practical sense but there’s a lot more wrong with it than can be said in its defence.
 
It’s said when state and national elections are held at different times the country is pushed into an almost semi-permanent period of political campaigning. The model code is almost always in implementation somewhere or the other. Governance, as a result, suffers. Political rhetoric and election bombast, instead, take its place.

 
What this overlooks is the fact Germany has a system similar to ours. And as happens in India, state elections in that country do not coincide with national elections. Indeed, often the verdict of one raises questions about the other. But so what? Surely this is a way of dip-stick checking the popularity of the national government and not a reason for changing the system?
 

However, my concerns go further. To begin with, the proposal contradicts the federal character of the Indian political system. We have 29 states and 2 Union Territories with their own assemblies. Each have their own assembly and it’s separate from the national parliament. If their longevity were to be co-terminous with that of the Lok Sabha it would impose on them an artificial timeframe and, thus, restrict their constitutional power to determine their own fate.

 
But this is only the first of my concerns. What would happen if a government loses its majority and the assembly cannot throw up an alternative? In an age where coalition governments have become common this could happen frequently. So, if an assembly has to be dissolved early, would the state have to wait several years till the next Lok Sabha elections before another is elected? In the meantime what would happen to popular representation? Wouldn’t this leave the state electorate effectively disenfranchised?
 
Connected to this is the prerogative of prime ministers and chief ministers to call early elections. It’s only happened infrequently in India but under Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair it was a regular feature in Britain. This is a power all heads of government have both to discipline supporters as well as take advantage of an unprepared opposition or other factors in their favour. It’s part of the democratic system of our constitution. How would we justify doing away with it?

 
These are all well-rehearsed concerns. There is, however, one other consequence that applies in particular to India.
 
If state and national elections are held at the same time important state leaders will be restricted to campaigning for their state assemblies and unable to participate fully in the national election. Thus a Mamata Banerjee, Mulayam Singh Yadav, Nitish Kumar, Mayawati, Sitaram Yechury along with their regional parties would be pinned down at state level and unable to effectively challenge Narendra Modi and Rahul Gandhi and their national parties. At a time when some of the fiercest opposition to the national parties comes from regional leaders would this not confer an unfair and unwarranted advantage on the BJP and Congress? And, you could ask, is this why the BJP is pushing the idea?

 
If my suspicions are wrong and the BJP believes its commitment to this concept is genuinely in the national interest then I would suggest Narendra Modi prove this to be the case. With 19 state governments under BJP control all he needs to do is ensure they hold their respective state elections to coincide with the next national election. This would mean the national election will have to be held early to coincide with the Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Chhattisgarh elections due by December. It also means the other 16 states would have to bring forward their polls.
 

If the BJP truly believes in this concept, this is a small sacrifice for what it claims is a big national gain. And if this is done it would be hard for the hold-out states or parties to keep resisting. But will the BJP take this drastic first step? I doubt it.