Opinion | Analysing BJP Manifesto, 'One Nation, One Election' and More

The BJP released its election manifesto, known as the ‘Sankalp Patra’ for the 2024 Lok Sabha polls on April 14, 2024, in the dynamic presence of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, among others. Over 1.5 million recommendations, including 400,000 from the NaMo app and 1.1 million recommendations were submitted via videos, truly showcasing the spirit of participative democracy.

Some defining highlights of this highly inclusive and pro-people manifesto are:

• Launching an indigenous ‘Bharat Krishi’ satellite for farm-related activities like crop forecasting, pesticide application, irrigation, soil health and weather forecasting and periodic review of the national floor-level minimum wages.
• Inclusion of auto-rickshaw, taxi, truck drivers and other drivers in all social security schemes.
• Empowerment of small traders and MSMEs through the Open Network for Digital Commerce (ONDC) to help them expand their businesses using technology.
• A focused approach towards tribal healthcare, measures to eliminate malnutrition among tribal children and providing comprehensive healthcare services in tribal areas on a mission mode.
• Measures to eliminate sickle-cell anemia.
• ‘Modi Ki Guarantee’ for a secure and prosperous Bharat.
• Robust infrastructure along the borders and technological solutions on the fenced portions to make fencing smarter.
• Implementing the Citizenship Amendment Act.
• Making India the third-largest economy in the world.
• Expansion of employment opportunities.
• Measures to make India a global manufacturing hub in various sectors, including electronics, by 2030.
• Bringing a Uniform Civil Code.
• Making ‘One Nation, One Election’ a reality.
• Quality education, establishing new institutions of higher learning.
• Balanced regional development, maintaining peace in the Northeast.
• Resolution of inter-state border disputes among the Northeastern states through sustained efforts.
• Elder citizens (aged above 70) and the transgender community to be brought under the ambit of PM Ayushman Bharat Yojana.
• Continuation of free ration for the next 5 years under PM Garib Kalyan Anna Yojana (PMGKAY).
• Pledge to build 3 crore more houses for the needy.
• Cheap piped gas to be made available for all households.
• Free electricity to poor households under PM Surya Ghar Muft Bijli Yojana.
• The BJP manifesto also promises to make 3 crore women Lakhpati Didis, up from the nearly 1 crore women who have achieved the feat
• Especially abled people to be given priority in the PM housing scheme as per their special needs.
• Existing healthcare services aimed at the prevention and reduction of breast cancer, cervical cancer and osteoporosis to be expanded, with a focus on omitting cervical cancer.
• Implementation of strict laws to stop misconduct in recruitment examinations in the country.
• Promise to keep increasing the MSP of crops “from time to time”, with a pledge to launch a Krishi Infrastructure Mission for integrated planning and coordinated implementation of agri-infrastructure projects as well as an indigenous Bharat Krishi satellite for farm-related activities.
• Enhancement of the fisheries sector by modernising infrastructure, providing financial support and facilitating the skill development of fishermen. With India being the third-largest fish-producing country globally, the BJP aims to leverage this sector’s potential for economic growth and social development through strategic initiatives outlined in its election manifesto and it is this eye for detail that ensures that the Modi government always delivers.

In this article, the focus will be on ‘One Nation, One Election’ (ONOE), which is an idea whose time has come. The former President of India, Ram Nath Kovind, in his address to Parliament in January 2018, mentioned this as one of the critically needed reforms. He said that citizens are concerned about frequent elections in one part of the country or another, which adversely impacts the economy and process of development. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has spoken emphatically about the desirability of having one election across the country. Therefore, the idea is not a bolt from the blue. The central idea is to synchronise the timing of Lok Sabha and state Assembly elections across all states to reduce the frequency of polls throughout the country.

The idea of ONOE made its debut in the first annual report of the Election Commission in 1983. It had supported holding simultaneous elections to reduce expenditure, for effective use of manpower and human resources and also because frequent elections affected the day-to-day functioning of the government, both at the state level and the Centre, creating hardship for common people.

The topic was revived by the 170th Report of the Law Commission, submitted in 1999. The Report underlined the desirability of holding elections to the Lok Sabha and State assemblies once in five years but admitted that it could not be achieved overnight in the prevailing circumstances. The proposal however, gained momentum with the manifesto of the BJP for the 2014 Lok Sabha election, which stated that the party would seek to evolve a method of holding Lok Sabha and Assembly elections simultaneously.

There was a flurry of activities, post-1999, after a long hiatus. The 79th Report of the Department Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice, submitted in 2015, was devoted to studying the feasibility of holding these simultaneous elections. It recommended an alternative and practicable method of holding simultaneous elections, which involved holding them in two phases twice in every five-year cycle. NITI Aayog issued a working paper on the subject in 2017 titled, ‘Analysis of Simultaneous Elections: The What, Why and How’. It broadly recommended a gradual move to synchronisation of elections between Parliament and State legislative assemblies between 2019 and 2024.

This was followed by a draft report of the Law Commission in 2018, which also recommended holding of simultaneous elections, with some exceptions. The Commission noted that for holding simultaneous elections, amendments to the Constitution, the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and the Rules of Procedure of Lok Sabha and State assemblies would be required. Such an exercise would save public money, reduce the burden on the administrative set-up and security forces and lead to concentration on developmental activities rather than election duties, the Commission said.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi, addressing the All India Presiding Officers Conference via video conference, on November 26, 2020, raised the pitch for One Nation, One Election and a single voter list for all polls, in order to prevent the impact of the model code of conduct (MCC) on development works every few months, due to frequent spread-out polls. One Nation, One Election isn’t just an issue of deliberation but also the need of the country.

On one voter list, the PM observed, “Only one voter list should be used for Lok Sabha, Vidhan Sabha and other elections. Why are we wasting time and money?” Emphasising the need for coordination between all three wings of the State – the legislature, executive and judiciary – PM Modi stated that everything, from their role to their decorum, was described in the Constitution itself. “In the 1970s, we saw how there was an attempt to breach the dignity of separation of power, but the country got the answer only from the Constitution. After that period of Emergency, the system of checks and balances became stronger and stronger. The legislature, the executive and the judiciary, all three, learned a lot from that period and moved forward,” he said at the conference.

ONOE was in fact, the practice till 1967, but it was disrupted due to various reasons such as defections, dismissals, and dissolutions of government. Subsequently, due to defections and counter-defections between parties, several legislative assemblies dissolved post-1960, which eventually led to separate polls for Lok Sabha and State assemblies. This synchronised cycle was first broken in Kerala, in July 1959, when the Centre invoked Article 356 of the Constitution to dismiss the ministry headed by EMS Namboodiripad of the Communist Party, which had assumed power after elections in April 1957. This was followed by state elections in February 1960.

ONOE enables the government to concentrate on governance even better. Today, there is some election or the other in some part of the country, at least every three months. The entire attention of the country becomes focused on these elections. There is a virtual paralysis of administration at various levels in varying degrees. ONOE will lead to continuity in policy decisions. Even when no fresh policy decision is necessary, implementation of ongoing projects gets derailed during election periods as the political executive as well as government officials are engaged with election duties.

One of the main reasons for political corruption, it is said, is frequent elections. An enormous amount of money has to be raised at every election. Election expenses of political parties can be reduced drastically if elections are held simultaneously. There would be no duplication of fundraising. This would save the public and business community from a lot of pressure for election donations, multiple times. Furthermore, the expenses incurred by the Election Commission (EC) can be reduced if elections are held simultaneously. Of course, the EC would have to invest a considerable amount of money initially to put in place the necessary infrastructure. Moreover, the same electoral rolls can be used for all the elections. This will save a tremendous amount of time and money spent on updating electoral rolls. It will also make it easier for the citizens as they would not have to worry about their names missing from the electoral rolls once they are enlisted.

A large number of police personnel and paramilitary forces are engaged to ensure that elections are conducted peacefully. This involves massive redeployment, involving huge costs. It also diverts key law enforcement personnel from their critical functions. Such deployment can be curtailed with simultaneous elections. Holding simultaneous elections could potentially reduce horse trading by elected representatives, which remains a concern even with anti-defection laws in place. Frequent elections lead to many state governments making policy decisions, only with the aim of wooing the electorate at every election. Even though this cannot be stopped fully, the frequency with which governments have to announce freebies will come down. Frequent elections have led to a situation where many state governments are broke. With a smaller number of elections, their finances could be in better shape.

Articles 83(2) and 172 of the Constitution stipulate that the tenure of Lok Sabha and State Assemblies respectively will last for five years unless dissolved earlier and there can be circumstances, as in Article 356, wherein assemblies can be dissolved earlier. Therefore, critics of the ONOE plan ask – What would happen if the Central or any state government collapses mid-tenure? Would elections be held again in every state or will the President’s rule be imposed? Again, what about the logistical challenges in terms of availability and security of electronic voting machines (EVMs), personnel and other resources? EC may face difficulties in managing such a massive exercise, it is alleged. The present form of recurrent elections can be seen as beneficial in a democracy as it allows voters to have their voices heard more frequently, say some experts. As the underlying issues of national and state polls are different, the present framework prevents the blending of issues, ensuring greater accountability, allege a few others who are against ONOE.

A 2015 study by the IDFC Institute found “a 77 per cent chance that the winning political party or alliance will win both the Lok Sabha and Assembly elections in that State when held simultaneously,” undermining the distinctive demand and needs of each state, say those who do not support ONOE. Well, all these criticisms are lame and the advantages of ONOE far outweigh any potential negatives, if any.

While ‘One Nation, One Poll’ will result in huge savings in expenditure, it cannot be achieved without dramatic changes to our Constitution. India has adopted a quasi-federal set-up and is neither unitary like Britain nor fully federal like the US. Members are elected for the Lok Sabha and the Legislative Assembly. Impartiality of the election process requires strict vigil on the part of the Election Commission. PM Modi has repeatedly asked the presiding officers of elected bodies to ponder over the idea of having one election and one voter list, to do away with the “Aaya Ram” and “Gaya Ram” style of politics.

The anti-defection law is special to India. It has, however, not been foolproof. Splits and mergers in political parties over the years gave room for conflict between the speaker’s jurisdiction and the court’s role. The prime cause for the instability of elected governments in India in the last few decades must be traced to the decision of the Congress party which misused the power that it enjoyed at the Centre, to dismiss state governments run by Opposition parties and declare President’s rule on flimsy grounds.

At one stage, nine state governments were dissolved at one stroke under Article 356 of the Constitution, by the erstwhile Congress regime. The practice would have continued unabated but for the Supreme Court ruling in the S R. Bommai case. Ours is a quasi-federal structure. In England, the king reigns but does not govern. In the US, the President both reigns and governs. The Indian President neither governs nor reigns, though he is constitutionally a very important figure and not a mere figurehead, as most would like to believe.

In the US, the state governor, like the President, is elected directly. We chose to emulate the British cabinet system, restrained by the spirit of collective responsibility. Morality is sacrificed at the altar of expediency due to frequent elections. The Charan Singh government, decades back, was overthrown within just four months. Russian President Vladimir Putin altered the law to enable himself to be the President of Russia till 2036. China, a while back, went through the one candidate election, in an election that had no candidate other than Xi Jinping, making a mockery out of what was anyway a farce to start with. Xi won the elections with 99.86 per cent of the votes.

India, in sharp contrast, stands out as a country with full allegiance to democratic conventions and One Nation, One Election will further strengthen democratic institutions and our socio-economic fabric. This theme has been an abiding one for Prime Minister Modi. While critics say it is against the principle of cooperative federalism, such criticism is unfounded. An option often suggested by some constitutional experts is that if it is not possible to conduct simultaneous elections, then at least all elections falling in one calendar year should be conducted together.

Historically, elections during the first two decades after Independence for the House of the People and state legislative assemblies were held simultaneously, i.e., during 1951-52, 1957, 1962 and 1967. The dissolution of certain assemblies in 1968 and 1969, followed by the dissolution of the House of the People in 1970 and subsequent general elections in 1971, disturbed the cycle of simultaneous elections. Indiscriminate use of Article 356 (President’s Rule) of the Constitution, by the Nehru-Gandhi establishment, also disrupted the schedule of simultaneous elections.

Various studies of the international scenario found that a system to ensure simultaneous election does exist in certain countries. In Germany, the Bundestag (i.e. the Lower House) cannot simply remove the Chancellor with a vote of no-confidence, as the opponents must not only disagree with the governance but also agree on a replacement, by way of a “constructive vote of no-confidence”. In some countries including India, in the event of a hung House/assembly, it is mandated that all efforts must be made by the president/governor, as the case may be, to install a government that will enjoy the support of the House/assembly. This would give an opportunity to the largest party, along with its pre-poll or post-poll alliance(s). If, however, a mid-term poll becomes inevitable, the duration of the House/assembly so constituted should be only for the remainder of the term. In the UK, the Parliament of Westminster introduced a fixed term by enacting the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, 2011, which provides a term of five years for general elections. The Act of 2011 specifies that early elections can be held only if a motion for it is agreed upon either by at least two-thirds of the whole House or without division, or if a motion of no-confidence is passed and no alternative government is confirmed by the Commons, within 14 days thereof.

The biggest argument in favour of holding simultaneous elections is the fact that governments do not have to be in election mode all the time, thereby making governance and policy-making more seamless. The Model Code of Conduct (MCC) prevents governments from announcing new schemes and making appointments. Deputing government employees frequently on election duty hinders public services, including school education, as well as the maintenance of law and order and national security. Simultaneous elections will, therefore, reduce the time and cost involved in the conduct of elections and will curb corruption and illicit financing of elections. Those who allege that ‘One Nation, One Election’ will be the harbinger of a unitary State are clearly misguided.

Again, there are concerns that simultaneous elections will impact the behaviour of voters, as national and local issues may get mixed up and distort priorities, giving an unfair advantage to national parties, at the expense of regional parties. Such concerns are, however, overdone, with no logical basis. Voters today, are very aware of both local and national issues and to assume that they will get confused if elections are held simultaneously, is an insult to the intelligence of the electorate. True, it may be a tad difficult to find a suitable time slot, given the geographical and administrative diversity relating to weather, agricultural cycle, exam schedule, religious festivals and public holidays, in a country as vast as India. However, the positives of simultaneous elections far outweigh any perceived negatives. The sheer logistics involved in holding simultaneous elections, in terms of requisitioning and movement of men, women and material, may make the exercise a mammoth one, but it is manageable.

Also, accusations that simultaneous elections may result in misuse of Article 356 or early dissolution of the Lok Sabha or any of the State assemblies, are simply a figment of the imagination of those who do not want One Nation, One Election. True, a large number of amendments to laws, rules and regulations would need to be carried out, making the task very arduous, but it is certainly worth the trouble. Amendments to the Constitution would encompass Articles 83 (duration of Houses), 85 (dissolution of the Lok Sabha), 172 (duration of state legislatures), 174 (dissolution of state legislatures), 356 (failure of constitutional machinery) and the Tenth Schedule (to ensure that all disqualification issues arising from defection are decided by the presiding officer within six months). Ratification of the amendments by not less than one-half of the State legislatures may also be required to be taken as a matter of abundant precaution.

Amendments to laws would inter alia require changes in the Representation of the People Act, 1951, such as Section 2 (adding a definition of “simultaneous elections”), and Sections 14 and 15 (notification of general and assembly elections). The Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business of the Lok Sabha and assemblies would need to be amended to replace “Motion of No-Confidence” with “Motion of Constructive Vote of No-Confidence”.

In the final analysis, a meeting of minds may be a good beginning in the pursuit of the goal of One Nation, One Election. But to take the idea to fruition will require not only a meeting of minds and a political consensus but also a resolute determination to act, in the larger national interest. And certainly, the courage of conviction, the ability to visualise and the will to execute and successfully implement, even the most seemingly difficult initiatives is something that Prime Minister Narendra Modi has in abundance. Be it One Nation, One Tax, One Nation, One Mobility Card, or for that matter, One Nation, One Ombudsman or even One Nation, One Ration Card, the Modi government has repeatedly showcased its ability to think big and then ensure that those big ideas are effectively implemented on the ground. Larry J. Sabato famously said – “An election is always determined by the people who show up.” Clearly, for the democratic process to retain its sanctity and not suffer from any fatigue, it is important to see those eligible for voting, participate in large numbers. That in turn makes it essential to make elections into an exercise that is not too frequent. One Nation, One Election is clearly an idea whose time has come. Also, if ONOE has to be implemented, it can only be done by a leader of the stature of PM Modi who has both the foresight and the courage of conviction to see it through.

Coming back to the BJP manifesto, it focuses on empowerment of women, youth, poor and farmers, with highlights like senior citizens aged above 70 and transgenders to be brought under PM Ayushman Bharat Yojana. The manifesto targets GYAN – ‘Gareeb’ (poor), ‘Yuva’ (youth), ‘Annadaata’ (farmers), and ‘Nari’ (women). It also focuses on making India prosperous, strengthening its international relations, and fostering the development of the country’s heritage, among others. Guarantee to make India the third-biggest economic power in the world from the fifth position currently, sums up the ethos of Prime Minister Modi’s thinking.

“Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime” is a famous adage. Well, this adage squarely sums up the difference between the Congress and BJP manifestos. While the Congress wants to focus on freebies, the Modi government wants to ensure that an aspirational India is not merely a pipe dream but an achievable goal that uplifts every citizen.

Sanju Verma is an Economist, National Spokesperson of the BJP and Bestselling Author of “The Modi Gambit”. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely that of the author. They do not necessarily reflect News18’s views.