Mamata Banerjee opposes One Nation One Election, flags ‘design to subvert Constitution’s basic structure’ in favour of Presidential system

Mamata Banerjee opposes One Nation One Election, flags ‘design to subvert Constitution’s basic structure’ in favour of Presidential system

“I incidentally suspect that the instant design to subvert the basic structure of the Indian constitutional arrangements is aimed at converting the polity of ours into a Presidential system,” Trinamool Congress chief Mamata Banerjee on Thursday wrote a letter to Dr Nitin Chandra, secretary of the committee formed by the Centre to examine the “One Nation One Election” proposal.

The West Bengal chief minister highlighted issues ranging from the meaning of the term “One nation One Election” to “premature dissolution” of the Lok Sabha or Assembly to the high-level committee’s methodology of writing letters to political parties instead of consulting state governments.

Highlighting her objections, Mamata Banerjee wrote, ‘Under the circumstances, I regret that I cannot agree with the concept of One Nation, One Election, as framed by you. We disagree with your formulation and proposal.”’

Banerjee’s letter is in response to a letter dated 18.10.2023 sent to her by the high-level committee.

“I also incidentally suspect that the instant design to subvert the basic structure of the Indian Constitutional arrangements is aimed at converting the polity of ours into a Presidential system. With profound considerations, the Constituent Assembly of India had presented us with a Parliamentary / Cabinet system of government, keeping in view the diversities and pluralities of our great country. But now your design seems to be to tilt the system in favour of Presidentialisation. The design is kept covert, seemingly because autocracy wants a democratic grab now to enter the national public arena. I am against autocracy, and hence I am against your design,” she wrote.

Banerjee wrote that she has “basic conceptual difficulties in agreeing” with the proposal and that the concept is not clear from the letter.

“What is ‘One Nation’ in this context? While I understand the meaning of one nation in a historical-political-cultural sense, I do not understand the exact Constitutional and structural implication of the term in the instant case. Does the Indian Constitution follow the concept of ‘One Nation, One Government? I am afraid it does not. Our Constitution conceives of the Indian nation in a federal manner,” she wrote.

“How will you like to make the Parliamentary elections and the State legislature elections coeval? In 1952, the first general elections were simultaneously conducted for the Central level as well as for the State levels. There was such simultaneity for some years. But the coevality has since been ruptured. Owing to a series of historical developments, different States have different election calendars now, and those calendars are also susceptible to changes due to potential (and often unforeseen) political developments.’

‘It is not clear how this basic issue of introduction of coevality is going to be addressed by your esteemed committee. States which are not expecting general Vidhan Sabha elections should not be forced to go for premature general elections for the sake of introduction of coevality only: that will be basic violation of the electoral trust of the people..’ she wrote.

On the other hand she added, ‘ On the other hand, the longevity of a legislative assembly cannot be extended either in the name of coevality, because people have elected their representatives only for five years, and not beyond. Imposing ad hoc administrative arrangements in different States for periods of interregnum in the name of introduction of coevality will also be undemocratic. Further, what would happen if the Lok Sabha is subjected to untimely dissolution, while Vidhan Sabhas have unaffected longevity? Instability of a government at the Centre and consequent impact on the Parliament should not destabilise the State legislatures, to be sure! How does your esteemed committee propose to navigate these questions?’

Mamata Banerjee also highlighted that she has “some difficulties” with the methodological approach.

“You seem to be conveying some sort of a unilateral top-down ‘decision’ already taken by the Central Government — to impose a structure that is certainly against the spirit of a truly democratic and federal one laid down by the esteemed Constitution of India. From the tenor of your letter, it appears that you view the proposed amendments to the Constitution as a mere formality that is to be got over with..” she added.

“Instead of consulting State Governments, that are, indeed, the very pillars of our federal Constitution, your letter brusquely informs us (as a political party) that the High-Level Committee is in agreement with the much-touted advantages of simultaneous all-India polls. We object to the most unrepresentative composition of this Committee and point out that no Chief Ministers are taken on board for fear of receiving practical objections,” Banerjee wrote.

Banerjee also added that the ‘approach failed to consider that Parliamentary elections and State Legislative elections are substantially different in character… Numerous State level issues and debates will just be superseded by the so-called national election,” she wrote in the letter.

“In sum, the fundamental issue is not to discuss ‘the advantages of simultaneous elections of Parliament and the State legislatures’, as you have put it in your letter under reference. The issue is about why and how to arrange simultaneous elections in the Parliament and the State legislatures in the current circumstances and in the prism of the basic structure of our Constitution. The issue is not about “creating the ecosystem that would enable simultaneous elections,” as you have put it in your letter. The issue is that of evolving the philosophy and correct methodologies for addressing the questions above. The issue is not about imposing an unviable scheme from above. The issue is about plurality,” she wrote.

Banerjee highlighted that “during the last 50 years, Lok Sabha has witnessed several premature dissolutions, the reason being that no political dispensation could secure a stable majority in the House. In such a situation fresh elections is the only option when the cycle of simultaneous elections would be snapped or else all the states would have to go for premature elections although enjoying majority support. The same situation would also arise in a case of premature dissolution of any one the State assemblies.

“Non-simultaneous federal and state elections are a basic feature in the Westminster system which should not be altered. To paraphrase, non-simultaneity is part of the basic structure of the Indian Constitutional arrangements,” Banerjee wrote in the letter.

For the latest news from across India, Political updates, Explainers, Sports News, Opinion, Entertainment Updates and more Top News, visit Indian Express. Subscribe to our award-winning Newsletter Download our App here Android & iOS