Simultaneous Election in India: An Amalgam of German, British, Swedish

and America’s Best Practices

Elections are celebrated like festivals in India. When first general elections were conducted in
1951, women and men on election-day wore ethnic dresses and gold jewelries as if attending
some traditional function. However, multiplicity and perpetual nature of elections generated a
fatigue and disinterest among the general masses. Simultaneous elections could be a panacea for
eradicating multiple ailments like growing clout of money and muscle power, low level of mass
participation and mammoth expenditure.
India is truly a multicultural country with immense diversity. Unity in diversity is the strength of
our country. This diversity could be preserved and the multiplicity of thoughts, customs and
traditions flourished undeterred till now because of the unique constitutional safeguards that our
forefathers provided to us after the independence of our country. Critics say our constitution is a
patchwork of various provisions taken from many countries of the world, however, our constitution
sustained all kinds of shocks and tremors since independence because of the fact that our
constitution was the unique text written after comparatively analyzing and extracting the best
features of many countries in various arenas. Now, the time has come to similarly revisit some of
the best electoral practices of the world to adopt an amalgam of unique electoral procedure derived
from other countries. India badly needs a system of election which would save its time, resources
and energy, nothing could be better than holding simultaneous elections in the country.

The United States of America is a federation of 50 states and India, a union of 29 states and 7
Union territories, both these democracies follow first past the post system of election, thus, they
are comparable in terms of number of states and electoral process, however, elections in the US
are generally held in two phases but in India it continues throughout the year. Most of the states in
the US go for polls along with the Congressional and Presidential polls in phase one and rest of
the states go for election during mid-term polls held in second phase. Thus, they have affectively
reduced the wastage of money, time and resources. Adopting the US model with necessary
amendments could serve Indian essentialities.

Germans have evolved a unique model of introducing motion of confidence along with the
introduction of no-confidence motion against the ruling government. Adoption of this practice in
India would not only reduce the arbitrariness of imposing President’s rule in state under article
356 of the Indian constitution but would also reduce the chances of house being dissolved
untimely and thus reducing the risk of altering synchronization of state election with other states
of that group. Representation of people’s act 1951 further empowers the Election commission of
India to reduce the tenure of legislatures by 6 months in special cases. Thus, both these provisions
working in tandem with each other would facilitate the path of simultaneous election. Similarly,
British have the habits of forming shadow cabinet along with the actual cabinet and members of
shadow cabinet are always ready to take on the government if the ruling government loses
confidence in the house, thus saving the house from dissolution. Sweden holds elections at all the
three levels i.e. Parliament, state and municipal on the same fixed day every four year. Thus, they
save huge monies that would have flown in multiple elections and also the time and other
resources.

Constructive Vote of No Confidence

One of the major fears repeatedly expressed against holding of simultaneous election in India is
with regard to the future of minority governments formed at centre as well as in state. Article 75
of Indian constitution ensures collective responsibility of the cabinet headed by the Prime Minister
to the Lok-Sabha. Cabinet ministers are supposed to swim and sink together in the parliament,
thus, a motion of no-confidence brought against the PM would mean no-confidence against the
entire government and the ruling party has to resign collectively. Owing to increasing centralizing
tendencies there always remain chances of governors of state acting on the whims of union
government, possibilities of horse trading also cannot be denied immediately after the conduct of
elections. Thus, the fall of state governments without completing a fixed term would have real
possibilities of altering the election schedule. This is not a new situation that would be unique to
India, other countries of the world also faced similar dilemmas somewhere sometime, they, thus
devised unique ways of mitigating this situation. One such method was introducing Motion of
Confidence along with Motion of Non-confidence in Germany.

There is no mention of either confidence motion or non-confidence motion in our constitution,

however, article 118 of Indian constitution empowers the house to determine its own rules of
procedure and thus under the mandate of this article Lok Sabha has devised the procedure of
introducing motion of no-confidence under rule no 198. Article 118 can be similarly used for
introducing motion of confidence along with motion of non-confidence.

German innovation of Confidence motion

Germany saw a severe phase of instable governments after the end of First World War in 1918 and
the experts believe that one of the reasons behind emergence of Nazi party led by Adolf Hitler in
Germany was owing to the political instability in Weimer Germany. This situation was created
because of the parties securing seats in the Reichstag by obtaining as less as 0.4% of the vote, this
led to proliferation of large number of parties in the parliament without getting stable majority. As
a result of this proliferation, parties were regularly voted out of the parliament by introducing
motion of non-confidence. The situation would turn so grim that Chancellors had to regularly
invoke Emergency provisions under article 48 of Weimer constitution to conduct the basic
business of the government.

Overcoming such problem was imperative for the proper functioning of the German parliament,
so, they devised a new idea that we today see in the form of Motion of Confidence. In 1949, they
introduced a provision in the German constitution, Basic Law that removal of a serving chancellor
would be ratified by the President only when a prospective successor also has the support of a
majority. Article 67 of Basic law says that “The Bundestag can express its lack of confidence in
the Federal Chancellor only by electing a successor with the majority of its members and by
requesting the Federal President to dismiss the Federal Chancellor. The Federal President must
comply with the request and appoint the person elected. Forty-eight hours must elapse between
the motion and the election.” Another provision led under article 68 of Basic law also provides
that, “If a motion of a Federal Chancellor for a vote of confidence is not assented to by the majority
of the members of the Bundestag, the Federal President may, upon the proposal of the Federal
Chancellor, dissolve the Bundestag within 21 days. The right to dissolve shall lapse as soon as the
Bundestag with the majority of its members elects another Federal Chancellor. Forty-eight hours
must elapse between the motion and the vote thereon.”

With the introduction of these provisions German parliament achieved rather a much desired
stability and the introduction of no-confidence motion would henceforth not lead to the dissolution
of the house, rather a minority government, in case there is no prospective successor, would carry
on the affairs of the house. This new provision of electing a new chancellor using motion of
confidence was for the first time successfully used in Germany in 1982 when Helmut Schmidt was
voted out of the office in favor of Helmut Kohl and it marked the end of SPD-FDP coalition in
Germany. The FDP was not on concurrence with the SPD’s economic policy and at the same time
SPD was internally divided over NATO stationing of nuclear missiles in Germany. Hence, the
successful use of motion of confidence enables other countries of the world to adopt this provision.

Inspired by this West German idea, other countries like Spain, Hungary, Lesotho, Israel, Poland,
Slovenia, Albania and Belgium are also using it at national scale. Spain adopted a very similar
system of no-confidence and confidence in 1978 for the national Cortes, it also executed it at
territorial levels. Under the constitutional provisions of Spain, the Prime Minister (President of the
Government) has to resign if he proposes a vote of confidence to the lower chamber of the Spanish
parliament and if he is defeated, or if the house on its own, brings censure motion against the
government. Similar to Germany in Spain, a prospective candidate for the post of Prime Minister
must be nominated before the introduction of Censure motion. If the prospective candidate wins
majority of the votes, the Prime Minister stands automatically removed. However, this censure
motion would be brought with the consent of one tenth member of the house and the motion has
to be passed by the absolute majority of the house. One notable feature of this “Constructive vote
of no confidence” in Spain is that it has not been successfully used even once in Spain. Thus, the
mere introduction of such provision has assured stability and full term governments.

Israel’s tale of motion of confidence

Israel also introduced the provision motion of confidence in its parliament Knesset after the direct
election of the Prime Minister of Israel was abolished in 2001. Before 2001, Israel had a different
notion of no confidence motion and this motion did not mean showing confidence in any other
prospective candidate for the post of Prime Minister as it was done in Germany, nonetheless it
only proposed a formateur, which meant a presumptive nominee who had to seek majority to form
the government. Thus, this system did not guarantee continuity of the government, the way it
guaranteed in Germany and elsewhere. However, an amendment was brought in the basic law of
Israel and it did away with the system of proposing a Formateur. The amendment done to the basic
law of government in 2001 now reads under section 28 (b) following provision, “ An expression
of no confidence in the Government shall be done by means of a resolution of the Knesset, adopted
by the majority of its Members to express confidence in another Government that announced basic
guidelines of its policy, its make-up and the distribution of functions among ministers, as stated in
article 13(d). The new government shall be established once the Knesset has expressed confidence
in it, and form that time the ministers shall go into office.” Since, India and Israel are together
writing new epochs in global geo-politics by cooperating each other in various fields, so, India
should send a parliamentary delegation to Israel to replicate some of the best electoral practices
from this unique Jewish country.

Poland’s tryst with constructive vote of no-confidence

Poland acquired independence very late after solidarity movement occurred in 1989,so, it had
lessons from rest of the countries of Europe to adopt some of the best practices to impart stability
to its newly formed democracy. The constitution of Poland written in 1997 mentions that the Sejm
(lower chamber of Polish national assembly) can remove the existing council of ministers by an
absolute majority provided that it specifies the name of the new Prime Minister. Article 158 of
Polish constitution reads out detailed provision of Polish use of constructive vote of no-confidence
which says, “The Sejm shall pass a vote of no confidence in the Council of Ministers by a majority
of votes of the statutory number of Deputies, on a motion moved by at least 46 Deputies and which
shall specify the name of a candidate for Prime Minister. If such a resolution has been passed by
the Sejm, the President of the Republic shall accept the resignation of the Council of Ministers and
appoint a new Prime Minister as chosen by the Sejm, and, on his application, the other members
of the Council of Ministers and accept their oath of office. A motion to pass a resolution referred
to in paragraph mentioned above, may be put to a vote no sooner than 7 days after it has been
submitted. A subsequent motion of a like kind may be submitted no sooner than after the end of 3
months from the day the previous motion was submitted.”

Westminster Systems

India inherited Westminster system of parliament from the United Kingdom. Westminster systems
are characterized by two traits namely partisan and non-partisan Westminster systems. In partisan
Westminster systems motion of confidence is normally not required. A Prime Minister faced with
a vote of confidence must either resign immediately or request dissolution of parliament and fresh
elections. On the other hand, if a prime minister in a non-partisan Westminster system sustained a
vote of no confidence in spite of the lack of an obviously viable successor then depending on the
circumstances he might have up to two alternatives to resignation: call fresh elections or attempt
to continue governing in spite of the non-confidence vote.
New Electoral system in Sweden

Talks of simultaneous election in India are always followed by the apprehensions of

mismanagement of entire electoral system. Similar apprehensions existed in one of the
Scandinavian countries, Sweden, when large scale constitutional reforms were undone in Sweden
in 1970. Before these constitutional reforms Swedish parliament used to conduct separate elections
at each level like us, however, burgeoning budgetary deficit and resource crunch guided them to
adopt simultaneous elections in Sweden. Under the current setting elections to the Swedish
parliament Riksdag, county councils (Landsting) and 290 municipal bodies are held concurrently
on the second Sunday in September along with the legislative elections.

Announcement of simultaneous elections in Sweden generated a fear among the political parties
and masses that simultaneous election would lead to the domination of national agendas to such
extent as to drown communal (local) policy issues. However, unlike Indian apprehensions,
simultaneous expression of opinion at different levels was considered valuable in Sweden. A three
year electoral period was fixed for all levels. The term of office on the two sub-levels had lagged
behind one year in the earlier system that existed before these reforms. After these reforms, the
term of office was adjusted and coordinated with the electoral period.

One more striking feature of the new Swedish electoral system was introduction of a substitute
member to replace those permanent members who remained absent for a sustained period. Absence
of elected representatives in India is also not new, so, introduction of such system can also bring
miracles in policy formulation. Even after the introduction of anti-defection laws in Indian
parliament, splintering of political parties and legislative members did not stop and it is one of the
most pertinent threats to the stability of government. Swedish electoral reforms catered to this
problem also. A large number of political parties were formed in Sweden between 1950-70 and it
was followed by huge splintering crisis. A barrier was added to the new election system to check
this problem. Only those parties that obtained at least 4% of the total vote could share in the
allocation of seats. Fixed seats are allocated to a party which secures 12% of the votes in one
constituency, even if does not gain 4% of the votes on a national basis.

South African Experience of holding simultaneous election

South Africa has strikingly similar electoral and parliamentary features with India. South African
national assembly has 400 directly elected members and Indian lower house has 552. Elections for
national assembly and provincial assemblies are held simultaneously after every 5 years in South
Africa while elections for the local councils are held two years after the national and provincial
elections. The constitution of South Africa provides for the early dissolution of National Assembly
or provincial assembly and reelection to these assemblies within 90 days of dissolution of the
house, however, council or the upper house keeps on functioning. However, unlike India, National
assembly or the provincial assembly in South Africa cannot be dissolved by the President if it has
not completed a minimum period of three years in the house. Reelected governments continue for
the rest of the term and fresh elections are again held simultaneously at its stipulated time.
However, ever since the enactment of new constitutional provision in democratic South Africa
national assembly has not been dissolved. Talks of dissolving national parliament of South Africa
for the first time in its democratic history are in the pipes these days. Section 50 of African
constitution mandates early dissolution of national and provincial assemblies.

Conclusion

Indian democracy has achieved a requisite level of maturity after passing through many ups and
down in last seventy years of independence. The apprehensions expressed regarding the
sustainability of simultaneous elections are mostly without grounds as most of them suspects the
mental faculty of Indian voters. Similar apprehensions were raised about Indian voters at the time
of Indian independence. Western countries those days assumed that Indian democracy would soon
collapse as voters are not literate and democracy is something that is meant for elites only. Indian
voters, masses, political parties and intelligent leaders falsified all such presumptions and
apprehensions and Indian democracy flourished leaps and bounds bearing all odds that came in its
way. It will similarly bear and wash the apprehensions associated with simultaneous election,

NITI Ayog in its detailed report has elucidated the feasibility of holding simultaneous election.
The Election Commission of India established under article 324 of Indian constitution is one of
the most professional election commissions of the world and it has shown its readiness to conduct
simultaneous election provided that government allows it to do so. Several reports including the
reports of Law commission of India and former Chief Election Commissioner’s report have
advocated for holding simultaneous election in India. Electoral reforms are long due in India, time
is ripe to begin with simultaneous elections and saving huge money and other precious resources
of our country.

Bhaskar Jyoti
Doctoral Research Fellow
Centre for European Studies
Schoold of International Studies,
JNU, New Delhi-110067

(The author is a Doctoral Research Fellow at Centre for European Studies, School of International
Studies, JNU, New Delhi. He is currently offering his services to the MOOCS project of Ministry
of Human Resource Development at NCERT as a subject matter expert of Political Science. He
has written extensively on Indian Diaspora and comparative political system of India and Europe.
He has done his Mphil on “Political participation of the Indian Diaspora in the United Kingdom.)
References:-

1) NITI Ayog discussion paper “Analysis of simultaneous elections : the “what”, “why” and
“how”” by Bibek Debroy and Kishore Desai.
2) “The Elections in Sweden in September 1970. Politics in a Multi-Level Election”
Scandinavian Political Studies
3) “Case for simultaneous elections: Aligning Lok Sabha with state assembly polls will save
funds for development and poverty eradication” by Thambi Durai in Times of India dated
October 13, 2017.
4) “A Case for Simultaneous Elections” by Swadesh Singh and Sushant at
www.indiafoundation.in
5) “How to dissolve the National Assembly” by Jan Gerber at News 24, dated August 10,
2017.
6) Constitution of South Africa
7) Constitution of Sweden
8) Constitution of Poland
9) Constitution of Israel
10) Constitution of India