'One India, One Election" sounds like a glittering dream; it promises togetherness while placing the central government on a pedestal as the guardian of the public good.
The reasoning used to justify simultaneous elections for the Lok Sabha (lower house) and state assemblies has been well-rehearsed. President Ramnath Kovind -- who last month backed the proposal -- said it would save the country hundreds of millions of dollars, and allow development and policy decision-making to continue unhindered. But, as with most political slogans, these justifications sugar-coat what is really a lose-lose situation for its citizens.
One notable point is that when security forces are stretched thinner in efforts to guard polling stations, shootings and other crimes would spike elsewhere and more people would die, as statistics suggest.
Even without simultaneous elections, Delhi's conjoined city Noida experienced a surge in crime rates over 10 days in 2014 after police were dispatched to different parts of Uttar Pradesh state where polling was taking place.
And if elections do occur less frequently -- reduced from multiple times to once every five years -- the stakes could be significantly higher. For some parties, this could provoke a greater willingness to rely on candidates with criminal backgrounds and even to kill for votes.
"In one sense, the answer to why political parties in India nominate [criminal] candidates … is painfully obvious: because they win," writes Milan Vaishnav, a director of the South Asia Programme at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Statistics show that candidates facing criminal charges in the 2009 parliamentary elections were 15% more likely to win than those without. After all, they have the funds, the means and the connections to push results in their favour.
To put Mr Vaishnav's statement into perspective, around 30% of MPs in the 15th Lok Sabha -- whose term ended in May 2014 -- faced criminal cases, with 14% on trial for serious charges including murder, kidnapping and assault. As simultaneous elections make winning an even more desirable outcome, this alarming percentage could take a turn for the worse.
At heart, this is an indication that corruption becomes the norm when checks and balances are inadequate. Voters with fewer opportunities to keep government accountable will inevitably face a less democratic society.
Supporters of "One Nation, One Election" claim that India's perpetual state of holding polls turns every policy decision into "bait for votes". To some extent, perpetual campaigning does hamper development, as a ruling party's capacity to fund projects is stopped every time the election code of conduct comes into effect.
But holding only one election every five years is equally dangerous, if not more so. As Supreme Court Advocate Nitin Meshram rightly argues: "People cannot be made to wait for five years until the next elections are held. The ruling party at Centre [parliament] and State will become insensitive to people's issues if there is only one election in five years."
Insensitivity leads to complacency. Voters, who previously were courted early and often, would be ignored by their representatives, who over time would lose interest in addressing their constituency's concerns. Under such conditions, long-term policy planning would lack input from the ground level, impeding the very productivity of public discussions that simultaneous elections supposedly aim to bolster.
Without multiple elections, local, regional and state parties would also find themselves competing for attention with national parties -- and failing miserably. National matters would occupy much of the spotlight, which would shine brightest on key contenders, one being Prime Minister Narendra Modi's own party. It's no wonder Mr Modi has advocated for simultaneous elections when he and his party have much to gain.
The lack of separation between the two types of elections could become a huge problem. Praveen Chakravarty researched all simultaneous elections in India between 1999 and 2014 and found that when state and general elections were held at the same time, 77% of people voted for the same party on both ballots. Meanwhile, leaving even a six-month gap between the two elections caused this figure to drop substantially to 61%.
"Diminishing the value of state elections … cannot be good for India's federalism," Bhanu Dhamija warned in the Huffington Post. Federalism is one of Indian democracy's most fundamental principles, reflecting the nation's diverse polity.
The dream of "One India, One Election" is just that: a dream. As brimming with exciting potential as it seems, what it really proposes is a nightmare for the people. And in this deal with the devil, only the most powerful can be winners.
