One Poll, Less Delay: Panagariya Advocates For Stable Governance And Faster Reforms

Prominent economist Arvind Panagariya, chairman of India’s 16th Finance Commission, has made a compelling case for simultaneous elections, or ‘One Nation, One Election’ (ONOE), emphasizing that frequent elections disrupt governance and delay much-needed reforms. In a detailed submission to the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) studying the 129th Constitutional Amendment Bill, he highlighted how scattered polls impose significant economic and administrative costs.

Key Highlights Of Panagariya’s Argument

Frequent elections result in repeated enforcement of the Model Code of Conduct (MCC), which halts policymaking, procurement, and project execution, severely limiting governments’ reform windows.

The current system sees elections in various states virtually every four to five months, creating near-continuous election mode, which breeds uncertainty and discourages long-term policy planning.

Simultaneous polls held once every five years would provide a cleaner, more stable policy horizon, benefiting both state and central governments in formulating and implementing reforms.

Panagariya cited academic research showing that frequent elections lead to increased populist subsidies and a shift from capital to revenue expenditure, weakening the quality of public spending.

He flagged practical delays caused by elections, including disruptions in constitutional bodies like the Finance Commission in conducting state consultations, hampering effective governance.

Economist Surjit Bhalla supported ONOE as a positive for democracy but proposed all assembly polls be held together mid-term of the Lok Sabha to balance accountability and reform gains.

Former deputy chairman of the Planning Commission, Montek Singh Ahluwalia, had a divergent view preferring separate Lok Sabha and state elections, but recognized the costs of frequent polls.

Economic And Political Implications

Adopting simultaneous elections promises significant cost savings in election expenditure and improved administrative efficiency. It would also bolster private investment confidence by reducing political uncertainty and enabling focus on growth rather than perpetual campaigning.

Panagariya’s submission underscores that this debate ultimately pits “permanent election mode” against stable governance structures, with far-reaching impacts on India’s economic trajectory and democratic processes.

Conclusion: One Poll For Stability And Reform Momentum

Arvind Panagariya’s reasoned advocacy for synchronized elections aims to break India’s costly cycle of frequent polls, fostering policy continuity, reducing fiscal wastage, and accelerating reforms. As the parliamentary committee deliberates, these insights offer a nuanced perspective on balancing democracy and developmental imperatives.

Sources: The New Indian Express, Indian Express, Economic Times, Hindustan Times, News18