Regional parties have argued that nationally dominant parties, with bigger organisational strength and resources, could benefit at their cost in the event of simultaneous polls

ONE OF THE main concerns of parties opposed to simultaneous polls is that a nationally dominant party, with its bigger organisational strength and resources, could benefit at the cost of regional players. And that national issues may take precedence over regional ones.

The report by the high-level committee headed by President Ram Nath Kovind addresses this criticism, arguing that “when regional parties effectively highlight local concerns to the electorate, voters would not be swayed by only national issues in the event simultaneous elections are held”.

The report cites the response by the Maharashtra Gomantak Party (MGP), a Goa-based regional party which is a part of the BJP-led government in the state, to say that several regional parties also favour simultaneous polls. In its response, the MGP said that “conducting elections simultaneously might enhance grassroots democracy by limiting the opportunity for external campaigners, thereby encouraging a heightened focus on local issues”.

However, other regional parties such as the Trinamool Congress, AIMIM, CPI, DMK, the All India United Democratic Front (AIUDF), Naga People’s Front (NPF) and Samajwadi Party (SP) opposed simultaneous elections in their response to the Kovind panel.

The Kovind panel then goes on to address another concern, whether a voter could choose differently if the state and general elections are held together.

For this, the report quotes an article published by the Centre for Study of Developing Societies (CSDS) and Association of Democratic Reforms (ADR), which looked at simultaneous elections held since 1989.

The article said that there had been 31 cases of simultaneous elections since the 1989 general elections — which was the start of a long period of coalition governments at the Centre — and that in 24 of these, “major political parties polled almost a similar proportion of votes both for the Assembly and the Lok Sabha”. Only in seven instances, the article said, “was the choice of voters somewhat different”.

Three of these occasions were seen in Tamil Nadu (1989, 1991 and 1996) “when the votes polled by the Congress and the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam were different for the Assembly and Lok Sabha”. Other cases were in Arunachal Pradesh (twice, 2004 and 2014), when the BJP polled more votes for its Lok Sabha candidates compared to those for its Assembly candidates, apart from Haryana (1996) and Andhra Pradesh (2014).

The article added that in this same period, when in many states Assembly and Lok Sabha elections were held at different times, the electoral outcome of the two elections was different.

However, the Kovind panel says, “it is important to note that in a mature democratic system like India, the outcome of elections to the State Legislative Assemblies or the House of the People (Lok Sabha) elections, whether conducted simultaneously or separately, is influenced by a variety of factors, not solely by the timing of the elections”.

Its report says there are instances “where voters have consistently supported the same political parties in both state and national elections, even when not held simultaneously” and that “there are also cases where voters have chosen regional parties for state elections, diverging from broader national trends favouring specific parties”.

Thus, the report says, voters “have an ability to evaluate their best interests and vote for candidates or parties of their choice”.

It quotes the example of Odisha in 2014, for example, when the BJP swept the national elections but the Biju Janata Dal (BJD), a regional party, increased its vote share from 37.23% in 2009 to 44.77% in the Assembly and Lok Sabha polls held together.

Additionally, the report quotes a 2017 NITI Aayog working paper titled “Analysis of Simultaneous Elections: The What, Why and How” to say that “simultaneous elections would ensure that national parties address regional issues, and conversely, regional parties would focus on national concerns” and result in an “alignment” as a “means to integrate regional parties into mainstream politics”.