Soroor Ahmed

If frequent elections come in the way of development of any country and distract the attention of the government machinery (as is being argued by the Bharatiya Janata Party bigwigs) then the United States of America should be counted in the list of least developed nations of the world. This is simply because election for the 435-member House of Representatives (Lower House) is held after every two years and not five years as in India. In the same way, elections for the House of Representatives in fifty states are held after every two years. The Federal and States elections are not always held simultaneously. In several States they are scheduled as per the suitability. The elections for President and Governors also take place after every four years, not five or more as in several other democracies. Similarly, after the 17th Constitutional Amendment of 1913 members of Senate (Upper House) are directly elected by the voters. Earlier, they were, like in India, elected by the members of state legislatures. There are in total 100 Senators—two from each State—and are elected for a term of six years. As in India, one-third of them retire after every two years. Thus, direct election for something between 33 and 35 Senate seats are held after every two years. The polling for one-third Senate seats and all 435 seats of House take place in early November. So are the Presidential election. What is more interesting is that the transfer of power takes place after two and a half months in January next. Yet nobody complains about administrative paralysis. Besides, referendums on important issues are common phenomenon in several western democracies, including the United States. In the recent years referendums were held for Brexit and independence of Scotland. In some countries people’s view is also sought on Constitutional Amendments. Italy had a referendum after World War-II over whether to adopt republican form of government or monarchy. At places the term plebiscite is used. Political instability no hurdle At the same time if regular polls or change of government impede the progress of any country than France, Italy, Japan, Israel etc. should have been worse off than Sub-Saharan countries of Africa. World War-II ravaged France registered fastest growth in the immediate post-war years that is during the Fourth Republic, which lasted for only 12 years (1946-1958). The Fifth Republic came into being after that. The country passed through the worst phase of political instability and in these 12 years between 1946 and 1958 it had 21 Prime Ministers. There was parliamentary form of government during the Fourth Republic. Yet the massive re-construction works continued in France, which became a nuclear power on February 13, 1960. The crisis in Indo-China and Algerian War of Independence too started during the same phase of instability. Giorgia Meloni, the present Prime Minister of Italy is heading the 70th government since the end of World War-II. Fumio Kishida is 101st Prime Minister of Japan since 1885. Yet these two countries, also ravaged by the World war-II, are members of G-7. Japan is in fact the third largest economy. Benjamin Netanyahu took oath as the 37th Prime Minister of Israel since the creation of the country on May 14, 1948. The Jewish state went to poll for the fifth time in four years in November last. In fact, in the last 75 years it hardly had a politically stable government. Yet not only the nascent nation survived but fought four wars and other battles with its Arab neighbours, which hardly had any election. The above examples of developed democracies witnessing fast progress, notwithstanding political instability and regular elections—as well as referendums—confirm the fact that seeking people’s opinion at quick interval cannot be cited as an excuse for the lack of development. This fact should be kept in mind before introducing the concept of holding simultaneous parliamentary as well as assembly polls on the plea that elections impede the progress of the country. The truth is that elections in quick succession keep the political parties, especially those in power, on toe. Their leaders would feel that they are accountable to the voters quite frequently and would in the process take care of the electorate. Otherwise, those in power would be reminded about the plight of common masses just before the completion of five years term. India’s example The saffron party leaders are quick to cite the example of simultaneous polls in the first four General Elections between 1952 and 1967. The truth is that this phenomenon was bound to break as the governments either in states or Centre can lose majority before their term ends. What they fail to appreciate is that India continued to grow at a much faster pace after 1967 when elections, because of political instability, became quite a regular phenomenon. The Lok Sabha election was preponed by a year to March 1971. Indira Gandhi led her faction of Congress Party to decisive victory. Within a fortnight the liberation war started in Bangladesh and India had to fight a full-fledged war against Pakistan in December 1971. Soon after this big achievement in the battlefield, India readied itself for Assembly election in several major states in March 1972. The Congress snatched back most of these states which it lost to opposition conglomeration in 1967 poll. Thus, came to an end the era of Aya Ram Gaya Ram politics, especially in Haryana and Bihar. In West Bengal the Naxals had taken the state by storm in that very period (1967-72). Not to forget India fought two wars between 1962 and 1967 elections and lost two Prime Ministers. Yet that was the time when India witnessed its first Green Revolution and nuclear test was conducted on May 18, 1974. Indira Gandhi had nationalized 14 commercial banks in 1969 and coal mines in 1972. The country witnessed the second phase of political instability between 1989 and 1993 when India had to go for two Lok Sabha polls—in 1989 and 1991---and many Assembly polls. In a few states, for example UP, twice within this period. India faced balance of payment crisis after the First Gulf War in 1991 and Babri Masjid was demolished on December 6, 1992. Yet the decision to liberalize the Indian economy was taken in mid-1991. Today we still call it as a bold decision and a turning point of the country’s history. Nobody then rued that regular elections were coming in the way of taking such major steps. Be it the period between 1967 and 1972 as well as between 1989 and 1993 the government in power then took some significant moves which had a lasting impact. Those in power worked much harder under pressure than at any other time when the ruling party had a big majority and no opposition to challenge. So be it in India or in other democracies it can be said that frequent elections cannot be cited as an excuse for the lack of development.

Soroor Ahmed

Frequent elections do not impede pace of development in democracies

Israel, US to benefit most by India-Middle East-Europe Corridor

US-Iran ceasefire extended even as Vance’s Pakistan peace trip on hold

Vijay Varma calls Kartik Aaryan the “PR King,” sparks debate

Abhishek smashes classy ton as SRH crush DC by 47 runs

What’s happened to me? Patralekhaa slams paparazzi over body shaming

Four, including two bank managers, held for Rs 2.65 cr bank fraud in Nalgonda