The ruling BJP has been pushing to change the electoral system for a long time. Congress rejected the idea when approached by former Prime Minister A.B. Vajpayee and later BJP leader L.K. Advani in the past.

The timing of the move was significant , as it was on the day Mod completed 100 days in office in his third term last week. This is one of the critical electoral reforms the BJP has suggested in its manifestoes for about two decades.

While the idea seems reasonable and doable, several questions have arisen. Is India ready for such a reform? Does Prime Minister Modi have the required two-thirds majority to get the bill to amend the Constitution passed in Parliament? Is there a political consensus? These are a few questions that need answers.

The primary and most important thing is that the bill can only be passed by mobilising two-thirds of the majority in Lok Sabha. In the recent 2024 polls, the BJP was 40 short of a majority in the house and could form the government only with the help of J.D. (U) and Telugu Desam. The BJP needs the support of the allies and also other parties.

The BJP is for the reform as it would stop disruptions caused by the frequent changes in the election cycle. It would also help cut down on poll-related expenditures.

Most Opposing parties reject the idea of simultaneous polls. They include the Congress, the Left parties, the Trinamool Congress, and regional and smaller parties. They reject it mainly to settle political scores and apprehension that they may benefit the BJP. Former President Ramnath Kovind's committee to go into the issue has unanimously endorsed the proposal after eliciting opinions from political parties. Thirty-two parties supported the problem, and 15 rejected it.

The panel also indicated that the Centre formed a panel to oversee the implementation of this proposal. Also, there should be a joint electoral roll for all elections so that voters will use the same list for national, state, and local polls. It would reduce errors in voter registration. The panel plans to talk with all the stakeholders. They also suggest having the votes in two parts. The first will be for Lok Sabha and Assembly votes, and the second for local groups.

Historically, from 1952, the first election that was held, to 1967, it was a synchronised poll. But this changed when Indira Gandhi came to power. She began invoking Article 356 to dismiss the Opposition-ruled governments and thus started the seperate state assembly election. It is continuing till today.

However, the bill faces constitutional, legal, and political challenges. The panel has recommended amending the last five articles of the Constitution to hold simultaneous polls in the country. They are amendments to Articles 83 and 172. The BJP does not have a majority, while constitutional amendment requires a two-thirds majority. Also, the Constitution is silent over whether polls should happen simultaneously. The ultimate test is how Modi would mobilise an adequate number of MPs in Parliament.

Second, a political consensus is yet to be made. The BJP has not tried to deal with or persuade the opposition parties to agree. The Opposition is in aggressive mood and has yet to come on board because they believe simultaneous polls would mean an advantage for the BJP. Significantly bigger parties like Congress oppose it. The Left parties, Trinamool Congress, Nationalist Congress Party and All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen have rejected the idea. The 15 opposing parties account for 205 M.P.s, while Modi requires 362 votes. A legal framework is also needed to meet the necessary changes for simultaneous polls. It could address problems with the state governments collapsing in the middle of the term and toppling games played by the Centre.

Since the idea is good and checks the wastage of money and policy paralysis, as well as the occurrence of elections every two years, the Opposition must think twice before rejecting the idea. They should bring that for public debate if they have an alternate plan.

On the whole, Modi is bringing this legislation to Parliament with a game plan. Win or lose, Modi gets the benefit. If he wins, it is the fulfilment of the poll promise. He can always claim that he brought the reform with good intentions if the bill is defeated, he can claim that the Opposition sabotaged it.

While the bill may be delayed, it is still worth debating and finding ways to do so eventually. After all, election expenditure is also taxpayers' money. (IPA Service)