In a resolute stand against the ‘One Nation One Election’ (ONOE), the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) vehemently opposes the idea asserting that it poses a threat to parliamentary democracy, the Constitution’s basic structure, and the country’s federal polity. The AAP conveyed to a High-Level Committee (HLC) constituted on the ONOE that the suggestion for concurrent elections to the Lok Sabha and all State legislatures poses a grave threat to the country’s democracy, Constitutional principles, and the bedrock of free and fair elections.
The AAP contends that ONOE is inadequate in addressing hung legislatures, paving the way for anti-defection and the open buying-selling of MLAs/MPs. The AAP even categorically debunked the ‘much-touted benefits of ONOE’, dismissing the cost-saving argument, highlighting that the proposed simultaneous polls would only save 0.1% of the Government of India’s annual budget. The party emphasizes that the foundational principles of the constitution and democracy should not be compromised for narrow financial gains and administrative convenience.
In response to the communication addressed to AAP National Convenor Shri Arvind Kejriwal by HLC seeking AAP’s views on the issues relating to conducting simultaneous elections in the country, AAP’s National Secretary Shri Pankaj Kumar Gupta submitted response to the HLC on the party’s behalf, flagging some serious concerns in this proposition.
The AAP stated that the idea of ONOE may sound attractive in its vague form, but the details of its functioning showcase that it irreversibly undermines our democracy, our Constitutional principles, and the idea of free and fair elections. AAP believes that the tenets of the Constitution and democracy cannot be sacrificed for narrow financial gains and administrative convenience.
Flagging some serious concerns about its constitutionality the AAP noted that Holding simultaneous elections will damage the basic structure of the Constitution The Supreme Court has held that the Basic Structure of the Constitution cannot be undermined, whereas the idea and mechanism of ONOE fundamentally damages elements of the Basic Structure.
Democracy:
“ONOE encroaches on the exercise of democratic power by the people by forcing the legislature to necessarily remain in office for five years even if the government loses the confidence of the people. It also demolishes the idea that the will of the people is paramount and their will provides for the authority of the government. Even when a government loses the confidence of the people, ONOE allows it to continue in office. Some reports on ONOE suggest curtailment and extension of tenure of various state governments and legislatures, which would directly violate the mandate granted by the people through the exercise of the vote,” the Aam Aadmi Party mentioned.
Parliamentary structure:
The AAP further added that in a parliamentary democracy, the government stays in office till the time it enjoys the confidence of the legislature. If a government loses the confidence of the representatives of the people, it must resign. The ONOE proposal suggests that the vote of no-confidence would be replaced by a constructive vote of no-confidence, where the government which has lost the support of the legislature would continue in power unless the legislature can provide its support to an alternative government. This completely dismisses the government’s accountability to the people.
*Free and fair elections: *
Raising its concerns on the free and fair elections after ONOE the AAP noted, “ONOE poses the threat of the national agenda and, in turn, the party ruling at the Union level gaining an unfair advantage over regional parties and other parties contesting the centre-ruling party in the states. Empirical evidence suggests that a very large number of voters tend to vote for the same party in the assembly election as they do for Lok Sabha. With the citizens’ voting choices being largely influenced by how parties are likely to play a role in national politics, smaller regional parties may even disappear, while the hegemony of the dominant national party will only increase.”
Federal structure:
The AAP expressed its concerns regarding the federal structure of the constitution after ONOE. “The proposal will alter the balance of Centre-State relations and further centralize powers. Federalism requires separation of the political process of election of representatives at both levels. The Parliament cannot assume unfettered power to determine the schedule of elections to those assemblies. The current form of elections provides a flexible option for the people to choose their state governments as per the needs of the different regions. On the other hand, ONOE will cause elections to be played on one central overarching stage, while regional issues and aspirations will be obliterated,” the party noted.
ONOE’s inability to deal with hung legislatures, and its interplay with anti-defection law:
Speaking on one of the most pragmatic aspects of the current Indian polity, the AAP mentioned, “The ONOE proposes that where no political party has a majority to form a government, the Prime Minister / Chief Minister may be selected in the same manner as a Speaker, after relaxing the provisions of anti-defection law for these ‘selections.’ If alliances have not been struck between parties before such a vote, then it throws open the possibility of institutionalized defection at the least and an open incitement for buy-selling of MLAs at the worst on the sacrosanct floor of the House.”
The AAP further added that It is the party with the strongest money and/or muscle power that will stand a chance to form the government and not the one which has the sacred backing of the will of the people. Even if anti-defection law is not relaxed for these processes, if the defecting legislators are later disqualified from the house, their illegitimate votes would have been utilized in pitching support for the government – this support for the government is legally, logically, and above all, morally wrong. Recent trends in government instability as witnessed in various states, show that the lacunae in anti-defection law almost always favor the dominant party at the centre (i.e. BJP) which has overwhelming control over investigative agencies such as CBI, ED etc. besides wielding unprecedented money power, as revealed by its annual disclosures to the ECI.
Constructive Vote of No-Confidence:
“There is a major drawback of the constructive no-confidence system which has been proposed under ONOE. If a Prime Minister loses the no-confidence motion but no alternative government can be formed, a constructive vote system would allow him/her to continue holding the post. However, it is quite likely that many legislative proposals will be defeated as the opposition may unite to oppose the government’s plan, even impeding money bills, and the government will not be allowed to function, similar to logjams seen in the USA. Research shows that the threat to the stability of the government posed by a no-confidence motion is exaggerated, and cannot be cited as the rationale for fixing the term of the legislature as five years through the exercise of the constructive vote of no-confidence,” the party stated.
In response to the ‘much-touted benefits of ONOE, the AAP debunked such claims raising a few concerns about the claims made.
Model Code of Conduct and the alleged ‘Election Mode
“The argument that implementation of the Model Code of Conduct is an impediment in governance work is misplaced. The MCC does not impede routine government functioning, and day-to-day administrative business continues unhindered. The ‘election mode’ keeps the political parties on their toes, and prevents them from being complacent. The Law Commission’s report shows that the Election Commission has not been able to answer the queries sent by governments on MCC promptly, and has failed to make the MCC more specific, leaving space for ambiguity. EC has itself gotten into the habit of conducting state elections in 5 to 8 phases, which, if conducted in one or at most two phases for large states, could wrap up the election process within 30-45 days,” the AAP mentioned.
Impact on finances:
The AAP wrote that there has been no robust and comprehensive comparison of costs arising out of simultaneous elections and elections in their current form. One of the ONOE recommendations states that the cost of holding elections to Lok Sabha and state Legislative Assemblies is Rs. 4500 crores, which is a paltry amount (~0.1%) considering the union budget expenditure of nearly Rs. 45,00,000 crores, or the nearly Rs. 15,00,000 crores of loans of industrialists written off by banks in the last ten years.
“The financial analysis in the Law Commission’s report is also severely deficient as it does not provide the projected combined cost of conducting simultaneous elections (including procurement of new EVMs, arrangement of storage spaces etc.) as compared to the expenditure being incurred in the present system,” the AAP added.
In conclusion, the AAP appealed to the HLC, “We appeal to the HLC to peruse all the suggestions made in this submission in an unbiased and non-partisan manner, and privilege the safeguarding of the constitutional principles as envisioned by our founding fathers over narrow arguments of administrative efficiency. India is a proud democracy that has inspired nations all over the world for the last 75 years. It is our collective duty to uphold and strengthen those principles that have served us well over the past seven decades.
