Answer

The 129th Amendment Bill proposes conducting simultaneous elections for the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies to streamline governance, reduce electoral costs, and minimize policy disruptions caused by frequent elections. While this approach may enhance administrative efficiency and stability, it raises critical concerns about its potential impact on federal autonomy, democratic accountability, and the unique political diversity of India.

Enroll now for UPSC Online Course

Fixed Legislative Tenures Might Bring Administrative Stability

• Reduction in Election Disruptions: Fixed tenures limit frequent elections, ensuring uninterrupted governance and continuity in policy implementation.
  For example: The government can focus on long-term infrastructure projects without interruptions caused by recurring elections.
• Streamlined Resource Allocation: Synchronised elections reduce administrative and financial resources spent on conducting frequent polls.
  For example: The Election Commission can consolidate its efforts, focusing on a single electoral process for better efficiency.
• Minimised Political Uncertainty: Fixed terms ensure governments remain in power for a predictable period, promoting stable policymaking.
  For example: Economic reforms requiring multiple years, such as GST implementation, would benefit from uninterrupted governance.
• Improved Governance Focus: Reduced election frequency allows leaders to prioritize governance over campaigning, ensuring sustained focus on developmental agendas.
  For instance: A government can implement long term reforms without the distraction of mid-term polls.

Fixed Tenures Could Potentially Undermine Federal Autonomy and Democratic Accountability

• Erosion of State Legislature Autonomy: Aligning State Assembly elections with the Lok Sabha may force premature dissolutions, curbing State autonomy.
  For example: A State Assembly dissolved in its second year to align with Lok Sabha elections loses its full term, undermining federal principles.
• Increased Central Influence: Central alignment may amplify the Centre’s power over States, diluting the checks and balances of federalism.
  For instance: During simultaneous elections, a dominant national party could overshadow regional parties, restricting political plurality.
• Impact on Accountability: Frequent elections compel representatives to engage with voters. Fixed terms might reduce the frequency of this interaction.
  For example: Elected representatives may avoid addressing local grievances promptly if they face fewer electoral challenges.
• Reduced Flexibility in Crisis Management: The inability to dissolve a legislature promptly during political crises may delay resolutions, impacting governance.
  For example: A government facing defections may have to persist until the next election cycle, exacerbating instability.
• Compromise in Regional Representation: Simultaneous elections might lead to a focus on national narratives, sidelining regional issues and demands.
  For instance: In a simultaneous election campaign, issues like farmers’ protests in a specific State may receive less attention compared to broader national themes like economic growth.

Positives of Simultaneous Elections on India’s Federal Democratic Structure

• Cost-Effective Elections: Synchronised elections reduce cumulative costs incurred by the Election Commission, political parties, and taxpayers.
  For example: The 2019 Lok Sabha elections cost over ₹60,000 crore. Consolidating polls could cut such expenses significantly.
• Reduced Election Fatigue: Frequent elections strain voters, candidates, and administrators. Simultaneous polls simplify the electoral process.
  For example: States like Maharashtra and Haryana could avoid separate polls by aligning with the Lok Sabha schedule.
• Consistency in Policy Implementation: A unified electoral calendar enables consistent governance at both Central and State levels.
  For example: Welfare schemes like PM-KISAN could see smoother implementation without state-level disruptions due to elections.
• Enhancement of Electoral Awareness: A single election cycle may improve voter turnout and awareness, as campaigns will simultaneously highlight both State and national issues.
  For example: Simultaneous polls in Odisha saw voters differentiate between the BJD (State) and BJP (Centre) during the 2019 elections.
• Reduction in Electoral Malpractices: A unified process minimizes the scope for manipulative strategies that thrive in staggered elections.
  For example: The model code of conduct could be implemented uniformly across States and the Centre, reducing violations.

Negatives of Simultaneous Elections on India’s Federal Democratic Structure

• Erodes Federal Autonomy: Aligning State Assembly tenure with Parliament compromises their independence, centralizing power.
  For example: Premature dissolution of State Assemblies for alignment undermines federalism, as seen in the 2024 Bill’s impact on State legislatures.
• Weakens Local Representation: Frequent local elections ensure direct accountability of representatives to the electorate, promoting responsive governance.
  For example: In Karnataka (2019), Assembly polls addressed regional issues ignored in national elections, highlighting the importance of separate timelines.
• Risks Political Homogenization: Voters might favor the same party at Centre and State due to simultaneous polling, threatening political diversity.
  For example: The 2019 Maharashtra elections demonstrated varied voter choices when held separately from national elections.
• Limits Flexibility in Governance: Fixed timelines restrict governments’ ability to dissolve legislatures to resolve political crises effectively.
  For example: The 2005 Bihar Assembly dissolution allowed fresh mandates to resolve a hung assembly, promoting democratic resolution.
• Overlooks Regional Priorities: National campaigns could overshadow critical regional issues, reducing focus on State-specific governance.
  For example: The 2014 Delhi Assembly elections prioritized local governance issues when held separately from national elections.

Check Out UPSC CSE Books From PW Store

Way Forward

• Strengthen Institutional Autonomy: Ensuring States retain decision-making power over legislative tenure to uphold federal principles.
  For example: The Constitution (1950) grants State Assemblies independent terms, ensuring balanced governance and respect for federalism.
• Promote Constructive Electoral Reforms: Focusing on reducing electoral expenditure without compromising periodic State-level accountability through pragmatic solutions.
  For example: Implementing e-voting systems can cut costs while preserving staggered elections’ democratic benefits.
• Encourage Local Governance Empowerment: Bolstering Panchayati Raj institutions to decentralize governance and address regional issues effectively.
  For example: Kerala’s empowered local governance system ensures robust regional development without depending solely on State or Central interventions.
• Adopt Context-Specific Approaches: Tailoring solutions based on regional diversity rather than imposing uniform election cycles across all States.
  For example: Northeast States’ unique governance challenges demand localized electoral timelines for addressing ethnic and regional complexities.
• Enhance Electoral Accountability: Mandating performance audits of governments to promote transparency and curb practices like horse-trading or defections.
  For example: Karnataka’s 2019 defections highlighted the need for stricter anti-defection laws, independent of simultaneous elections.

While simultaneous elections could enhance administrative efficiency and reduce election-related disruptions, they pose significant risks to India’s federal structure. A fixed tenure could centralize power, undermining state autonomy and weakening democratic accountability. To maintain the integrity of India’s democratic system, it is essential to safeguard federalism and ensure that both state and national interests are balanced in governance.

DOWNLOAD PDF