Why must we vote so often?

NEW DELHI: One saving grace of Indian democracy – though some call it one of India’s troubling flaws – is that there is practically always an election happening. So, just as the echoes of the last general election – which kept Prime Minister Narendra Modi in office, but without a majority and leading a coalition government – died down, the state of Haryana and the union territory of Jammu and Kashmir went to the polls to elect their legislatures. The results, announced last week, surprised politicians and pollsters alike.

Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) pulled off an unexpected victory in Haryana, where it was expected to lose. And the opposition Congress party, together with its regional ally, the National Conference party, claimed victory in Jammu and Kashmir, where polls had forecast a hung Assembly with no party or alliance securing a majority. With pollsters also having gotten the June election wrong – they projected a sweeping BJP victory – India’s electorate certainly cannot be called predictable.

Indian voters will soon have more chances to defy expectations. Before the year is out, two more states, Maharashtra and Jharkhand, will go to the polls. They could easily be followed by Delhi, where the beleaguered chief minister recently resigned, demanding early elections (which are due by next March in any case). In other words, beyond being packed – each of India’s 28 states and seven union territories elect their own governments – India’s electoral calendar is subject to change.

For Modi’s government, all this election-related uncertainty has gone too far. He wants India to establish a fixed election schedule, with the Lok Sabha (lower house of parliament), state assemblies, and local bodies all being elected on the same date every five years. A high-level committee, headed by former President Ram Nath Kovind, just produced a voluminous report backing this approach, which Modi calls “One Nation, One Election.”

The frequency of elections can indeed be a challenge for the national government. For one thing, while local elections largely concern local issues, they are often seen as a sort of rolling referendum on the national government. For another, governance tends to grind to a halt during elections, since the independent Election Commission’s Model Code of Conduct prohibits incumbents from making policy announcements that might induce voters to support them.

In addition, national leaders can get caught up campaigning in states holding elections, each of which has its own political history and, often, its own parties. Modi and his home minister, Amit Shah, have been fixtures of this endless campaign trail throughout their decade in office, leaving them with little time for their official duties.

Modi argues that frequent elections waste both money and time. It may also have occurred to him that simultaneous elections might give national parties and issues a boost in state elections, which may be less likely to turn the focus onto local leaders and problems amid a national election campaign.

The opposition rejects the proposed reform, pointing out that whatever trivial cost savings might be gained by holding all elections simultaneously would be dwarfed by the losses associated with depriving the economy of the frequent stimulus that free-spending campaigns provide. More important, the proposal betrays a sinister intent to ride roughshod over India’s federalism and diversity, reflecting Modi’s fondness for unitarianism dressed up as efficiency.

The most glaring problem with “One Nation, One Election,” however, is that it is impractical, which we know from experience. After independence, India established a single Election Day. But that arrangement lasted just 15 years, from 1952 to 1967. The reason lies at the root of India’s parliamentary system: governments must maintain a legislative majority. If a government loses its majority before its term is up, fresh elections must be held. A government might also call early elections in the hope of increasing its majority.

This has happened at different times in different states, and several times at the national level. And it will continue to happen, particularly given coalition rule in many states. Indian states move to their own rhythms, very different from that of the Union drummers in Delhi. A national coalition government, such as the one Modi currently heads, could also fall apart. What then? It would surely be undemocratic for a government to remain in power without a renewed electoral mandate.

The “One Nation, One Election” approach would make sense only if chief executives were directly elected, so that their mandate is not based on a legislative majority – in other words, a presidential system. And, in fact, a case could be made for such a system in India, at the state and even the federal level, but Modi is not making it.

India’s democrats have long convinced themselves that a presidential system would enable dictatorship, and so must be resisted. But the parliamentary system has brought its own kind of tyranny, as overweening executives have wielded their legislative majorities like weapons. In a presidential system, the executive would be accountable to an independent legislature; it could not use the legislature as a notice board and a rubber stamp, as the BJP has done for a decade.

But that idea is not on the anvil, and within India’s parliamentary system, “One Nation, One Election” simply does not work. In any case, the last thing Indian democracy needs is fewer elections, which are the only mechanism whereby we, the Indian public, can assert ourselves against government overreach. This makes “One Nation, One Election” a fundamentally undemocratic proposal.

For now, we should welcome the two or three state elections that will be held in the coming months. Perhaps Indian voters will again give their political masters a few more surprises.