Problems associated with frequent elections:

Frequent elections affect policymaking and governance as the

government is trapped in short-term thinking.

It also destabilises duly-elected governments and imposes a heavy

burden on the exechequer.

The Model Code of Conduct (MCC) which comes into force with the
announcement of poll dates. This brings normal work of the government to
a standstill.

It also increases the cost of management to the election commission.

Frequent elections have some benefits too:

One, politicians, who tend to forget voters after the elections for five years
have to return to them. This enhances accountability, keeps them on
their toes.

Two, elections give a boost to the economy at the grassroots level,

creating work opportunities for lakhs of people.

Three, there are some environmental benefits also that flow out of the
rigorous enforcement of public discipline like non-defacement of private
and public property, noise and air pollution, ban on plastics, etc.

Four, local and national issues do not get mixed up to distort

priorities. In voters minds, local issues overtake wider state and national
issues.

Besides, a staggered electoral cycle also acts as a check against

demagoguery, fascism and oligarchy, in that order.

It also ensures that the mood of the nation at a particular moment does
not hand over political power across a three-tiered democratic
structure to one dispensation or individual. It gives people a chance
to distinguish between the national, state and local interests, rather than
being swept away in a wave, often manufactured by corporate media
and the economic muscle of commercial carpetbaggers.

Why holding simultaneous elections is a good idea?

This will help save public money.

It will be a big relief for political parties that are always in campaign mode.

It will allow political parties to focus more on policy and governance.

Previous experiences:

After the Constitution came into being in 1950, elections to the Lok Sabha and all
state assemblies were held simultaneously in 1952, 1957, 1962 and 1967 and all
the newly elected legislative bodies were constituted between March and April in
each of these years.

In the first three elections, it was virtually one-party rule with the Congress
Party holding sway over the voters almost everywhere. However in 1967,
the electorate dislodged the Congress in a few states and voted in
unstable coalitions. A couple of these governments collapsed ahead of
time in the late 1960s, thus marginally disrupting the arrangement of
simultaneous elections to the Lok Sabha and all the state assemblies.

However, the real damage was done in 1970, when early dissolution of the
Fourth Lok Sabha took place. Since then, the arrangement of simultaneous
elections has come to an end and over a period of time, the country has
got into a vicious cycle of elections which has begun to hurt governance in
a big way.

Why it is difficult to go for simultaneous elections?

The biggest challenge is achieving political consensus, which seems

to be chimerical.

Regional parties will be more opposed to the idea than national parties
because there is a chance that the Indian voter will vote for the same
party for both the state and Centre when elections are held
simultaneously.

Alternative method:
An alternative and practicable method is holding elections in two
phases. Elections of some assemblies can be held at mid-term of Lok Sabha
and remaining with the end of tenure of Lok Sabha. For this, the terms of
some legislative assemblies may need to be extended while some of them may
need to be curtailed.
In order to achieve this, the tenure of the existing state assemblies will have to
be curtailed or extended by some months. In any case, the Election Commission
is empowered by the Representation of the People Act, 1951 to call an election
six months prior to the end of the normal term of the Lok Sabha or any state
assembly.

Way ahead:
Although it may not be immediately possible to move towards simultaneous
elections, it is still worth debating and finding ways to eventually do so. The
problem of premature dissolution has diminished significantly after the passage
of the anti-defection law and the Supreme Courts landmark Bommai judgement.

Conclusion:
One India, One election is an interesting concept but whether it will decrease the
evils that the nation/government wants to get rid of needs to be debated
thoroughly. To be sure, there are multiple issues that will need to be addressed if
the country intends to move in this direction. The concerns and suggestions of
different stakeholders will have to be debated in order to build political
consensus around the idea. That said, the proposal will not only have economic
benefits but will free up precious political space for policy discussions. It will also
help in taking forward the process of economic reforms as decisions will not
always be hostage to assembly election.
The beginning of the debate

India witnessed simultaneous elections to the Lok Sabha and Vidhan

Sabhas till 1967 till it got derailed due to dissolution of some Assemblies
after the imposition of Central rule under Article 356 of the Constitution.

Law commission in 170th report in 1999 had also supported the idea of
one election once in five years for the Lok Sabha and all Legislative
Assemblies.

The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances,

Law and Justices report in December 2015 said that several structural
changes will need to be done in case a decision is made to conduct
simultaneous election, including the possibility of Constitutional
Amendments to Articles 83, 172, 85 and 174 to streamline the process.

The debate has now gained momentum for conducting simultaneous

elections with President and PM reiterating the need for electoral reforms
for strengthening democracy.

The upcoming elections are Lok Sabha-2019, Assembly elections in 5

states- 2017, in 13 states- 2018, 1 state in 2020 and remaining in 2021.

Simultaneous elections are beneficial

It will lighten the financial strain on the government/Election

Commission machinery. Law commission report (1999) pegged it at about
4500 crores.

It will avoid repeated enforcement of the Model Code of Conduct (MCC)

which interferes with normal policy implementation and governance in the
state. Thus, it will bring stability in governance.

It will have impact on functioning of essential services. The

campaigns and rallies cause traffic problems as well as loss of productivity.

From competitiveness and productivity viewpoint, simultaneous

elections reduce the type of manpower and resource deployment

necessary for the conduct of elections. Thus, the administrative strain on

election machinery is expected to ease.
But, there are substantial arguments against the conduct of simultaneous
elections

The cost of conducting elections

The elections in India see huge spending of money by candidates, political

parties and government (ECI).

There is cap on how much a candidate can spend on his campaign. But
still, more than permitted is spent as candidates believe that it would help
them reach out more voters, thereby increasing their chance to win.

However, the question of cost which has been considered more frequently
in the debate, talks about reduction in expenditure of government and not
candidates and political parties which has more impact on electoral
outcome.

There is no doubt that limited number of elections will result in lesser

government expenditure. But, elections are lifeblood of democracy. A
seemingly possibility to impose simultaneous elections shows that
monetary concerns are more important than democratic principles which
is not a good practice.

Improving performance

Another argument for favouring simultaneous elections is that it is for

better governance.

Due to multiple election schedule, the MCC prevented the government

from new projects which ultimately slowed down development work.

However, to solve this issue, it is more feasible to change the rules of MCC
which allows government functioning for a reasonable period (in force
when elections are notified and not when elections are announced).

Not many know but there is a provision that government can consult ECI
about policy decisions. If the ECI is assured that such decisions will not
affect electoral outcome, such decisions get a go-ahead.

In a normal course, the MCC will be applicable to the election state only.
Then there is no reason with government to stall projects in other states or
centre unless it affects electoral outcome in the election state.

Undermining federal structure

India has a federal structure and a multi-party democracy where elections

are held for State Assemblies and the Lok Sabha separately.

One country, One election is misleading. This slogan overlooks that

though India is one country, the constitution also recognises existence of
29 States which have their own constitutional status in matters of
elections and government formation.

One country does have one election, and that is for the Lok Sabha.

The envisaged practice of having central, state and also panchanyat

elections together is a step in direction away from federal state that
the constitution desires.

The voters have increased voting choices when elections at state and
central level are held at different time. This distinction gets somewhat
blurred when voters are made to vote for electing two types of
government at the same time, at the same polling booth, and on the same
day.

Evidence shows that there is a tendency among the voters to vote for the
same party both for electing the State government as well as the Central
government.

Since 1989 elections, there have been 31 instances of holding

simultaneous elections for State Assemblies and the Lok Sabha. In 24
elections, the major political parties polled almost a similar proportion of
votes both for the Assembly and the Lok Sabha. In 7 states only, the
choice of voters was different (For different government at centre and
state).

During the same period, when in many States the Assembly and Lok
Sabha elections were held at different times, the electoral outcome (votes
polled by different parties) of the two elections has been different.

Conclusion

Though ECI supports the idea, it has warned of several logistical and
financial challenges that have to be overcome before it can prepare to
hold state and central elections together.

The challenge is significant because all political parties have to be on

board to and pass a constitutional amendment to this effect.

There can be a possibility that an incumbent government falls without

completing its terms or there is a creation of a hung assembly. In such
cases, the mechanism to be followed has to be yet evolved.

Though there are talks in favour of simultaneous elections becoming a

reality, there is a possibility it might go against the political diversity which
is essential for addressing the social diversity of India.