One Nation One Poll: A Move Towards One Nation One Party

Democracy is seen as a process through which political rights are granted to people and groups who are deprived of these rights and have little or no role in governance. Democracy is seen as a challenge to the privileged position of the aristocratic classes and the opening of the political system for upward mobility of the lower classes by enfranchisement. Prime Minister Narendra Modi's efforts to make 'One Nation, One Poll' a reality is in contradiction to his desire to increase the participation of those who are hitherto excluded from having any say in the governance of the country.

The ‘One Nation, One Poll' policy does not adhere to the principle of participatory democracy. It wants to curtail participation by holding elections just once in five years for all representative institutions. The main argument is that holding frequent elections results in excessive cost and leads to frequent policy paralysis with the imposition of a model code of conduct. This argument smacks of elitism. Those who believe in elite rule say that whatever political system we may adopt, there will always be a small minority that will rule over the majority i.e. the masses. If this is the case, then why go for frequent elections to cater to different levels of representations? Elections are simply seen as a mechanism for choosing the elites. One may metaphorically say that if this is the case, then why not hold elections every ten years?

In the entire debate on 'One Nation, One Poll' in the Lok Sabha, the reference to democracy and the participatory role of the people were completely missing. Neither the Treasury nor the Opposition benches once emphasised that this bill would restrict the participation of the people in the governance of the country only once in five years. It is difficult to conceive democracy as a notion devoid of any ethical considerations. For that matter, to conceive democracy sans people would be a fallacy. Democratic ethos demands continuous appraisal of the rulers through the participation of the citizens in various institutions related to civil society.

Unfortunately, in India, in the last three decades, one could observe a decline in the civic engagement of the people with their democratically elected governments. Most universities do not hold student elections regularly or even teacher라이브 바카라 associations have, more or less, become defunct or ineffective.

The workers unions, or even the railway union, which were once seen as a powerful instrument of civic expression of public discontent have become invisible. So, in this context, the concept of 'One Nation, One Poll' would further emasculate the body politic of this country.

The ruling dispensation라이브 바카라 efforts to hold all elections in one go demand a thorough debate. No major study by any social scientist has pointed towards the pitfalls of not holding elections simultaneously, either in terms of its impact on the economic resources spent or obstacles in taking major policy initiatives. It is hard to understand why the expression of the will of the people has to be restricted to its exercise only once in five years for all representative institutions.

Between 1952 and 1967, Lok Sabha and Vidhan Sabha elections were held simultaneously. It was possible because of Congress' dominance in Parliament as well as in the State Assemblies. The first disconnect occurred after 1967 when the Congress lost Assembly elections in seven states and the Opposition could not provide a stable government. Then the State Assemblies were dissolved, and mid-term elections were held. Later on, one could observe the dissolution of the Lok Sabha before the expiry of its term in 1980, 1991 then again in 1999. When the NDA was formed in 1998, the BJP froze some of its core demands such as the Uniform Civil Code, the Ram Mandir and the abolition of Article 370. Some scholars even at that time raised the question whether the BJP would give up these issues in the event it got a majority. This question found its answer after 2014. So, the question arises why the BJP wants to go for One Nation One Poll. Is it part of its strategy of making the BJP the dominant force at the pan-India level?

The BJP has the desire to dominate Indian politics in the same manner in which the Congress dominated between 1952 and 1967. Presently, the BJP faces challenges to its dominance from different regional parties at different times. Would the 'One Nation One Poll' tilt the power balance in favour of the BJP because of its large scale of operation, which cannot be matched by any national party or regional party at the moment. The BJP may also be thinking that its ideological agenda could be carried on only if its dominance over Indian politics was complete and unchallenged.

The Congress could dominate because of its legacy of struggle during the freedom movement. The BJP wants to replicate this model of dominance by bringing certain constitutional changes that would enable the party to spread its influence at the pan India level. The BJP, despite its dominance of Indian politics since 2014, has faced many challenges, especially from the regional parties. The party has lost a number of elections in the states to these regional outfits. The holding of simultaneous elections would give the BJP an edge over its rivals at the national level as well as at the state level because no single party today is in a position to challenge and mobilise resources on such a large scale if the elections are held simultaneously. 'One Nation One Poll' may be the precursor of 'One Nation One Party', wherein the BJP may claim to be representing the whole country. So, the catch lies in the word 'One'. Uniformising everything has been the core agenda of the BJP, whether it is single taxation system in the form of GST or the Uniform Civil Code, and now, this concept of one nation one poll.

The growth of regional parties was seen by scholars as the expression of democratisation and federalisation of Indian polity. The regional interests were aggregated by the regional parties in different states. The challenge to Congress hegemony did not come from any National party but from these regional political outfits. Today, the BJP also faces the major challenge to its dominance not from any national party but from regional leaders like Mamata Banerjee, Akhilesh Yadav, N Chandrababu Naidu and many more such leaders. The BJP could expand only after decimating some of the regional parties. The BJP perhaps wants to consolidate its gains made during the last 10 years by holding elections simultaneously so that there is no level playing field for its opponents at the national level or at the state level. At present, the Congress and other regional parties are able to challenge the hegemony of the BJP time to time in the elections to different state assemblies. Would this be possible if all elections are held at one go?

Professor Rajendra Sharma is the Head of Department of Political Science at M.D.University, Rohtak.