Electoral Reforms and the Question of Social Justice

Abhay Kumar

The ruling Hindutva forces with the support of the national media are spreading a myth that the policy of ‘One Nation, One Election’ is indeed good for the country.

The recent campaign was triggered by the setting up of a committee by the Modi Government to look into the possibility of simultaneously holding elections for Lok Sabha, Assemblies and local bodies.

The eight-member committee is to be headed by former President Ram Nath Kovind. Apart from the formation of a committee, a special session of Parliament has also been called between September 18 and 22 to discuss the issue.

Prime Minister Modi has strongly argued that the policy of conducting all elections together was necessary for the development of the country. An old speech of Modi is being widely shared on social media in which he is heard saying that ‘One Nation, One Election’ was not an issue of debate, but it was the need of India.

He added that after a gap of a few months, a big election was held at one place or another. This, according to him, had resulted in creating impediments in the path of developmental work. Modi, therefore, called for a thorough study of this issue.

In the din of ‘One Nation, One Election’ debate, several important questions are being ignored. If Parliamentary, Assembly and municipal/panchayat elections are simultaneously held, it is likely to harm the political interest of small parties and marginalized communities.

It is because the bigger national parties have huge resources at their disposal and they enjoy strong corporate support. Thus, they can easily manage large-scale elections, but the minor players would find it almost impossible to stand in the race.

‘One Nation, One Election’ is also against the spirit of federalism, one of the key ideals of the Constitution. Remember that the Hindu Right has often spoken in favour of a unitary state, while our Constitution calls India “the Union of States”.

The Hindu Right has been a strong votary of a strong state. On occasions, the Hindu Right has spoken in favour of the presidential model of government. But the political scientists have argued that the strong state and the presidential model of government are against the interests of marginalized communities.

They serve majoritarian interests and promote personality-based politics. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar was strongly opposed to hero worship in politics.

While the Hindu Right is at the forefront of showing itself as “the true champion” of Babasaheb, it has often worked against the interests of the marginalised groups.

Dr. Ambedkar was also a great champion of proportional and effective representation for marginalized groups. He had no hesitation in saying that the uppercaste representatives often failed to serve the legitimate interests of the lower castes and other marginalized social groups.

The bitter experience of Ambedkar as an untouchable made him conclude that a good law or a good Constitution did not necessarily ensure justice. To achieve social justice, the marginalised groups should become the policy-makers.

He argued that if laws were good and those who were entrusted to translate them into action were casteist and communal, the marginalized sections would never get any relief. That is why, he called for ensuring the proportional and effective representation of the exploited classes at every level of the government.

Even in the domain of culture, cinema, media and religious institutions, marginalized communities should have effective representation. The domains of industry and agriculture should also be democratised to achieve any substantive social change.

These issues are deliberately ignored in the current debate on ‘One Nation, One Election’. The most important issue before the electoral system of India is to achieve social justice.

It is a fact that the major political parties, except the Dravidian parties in the South and the BSP in north India, are dominated by the upper castes. Even the Communist parties, who otherwise keep talking about revolution day and night, have been hesitant to give key positions to Dalits, Adivasi, lower castes, Muslims, women and other marginalised communities.

While their social base is subaltern groups, their leadership largely comprises privileged castes. This is one of the main reasons why the parties with red flags, which were once far ahead of the RSS and the BJP, are now reduced to a few pockets of the country.

These examples are pointers to the fact that the privileged castes are ruling the roost everywhere. The proposed policy of ‘One Nation, One Election’ is another ploy to divert the real issue of electoral reforms from the point of view of the most margina