Shiv Sena chief Bal Thackeray is nothing if not passionate about his pet peeves. One such peeve is the model code of conduct that comes into force before elections. The Sena-BJP combine came to power in Maharashtra in March 1995. Every year thereafter there was some election or the other: the Lok Sabha elections of 1996, municipal corporation polls in 1997, Parliament elections in 1998 and the simultaneous assembly and Lok Sabha polls of 1999. Elected in 1995 for five years, the alliance went in for early polls in March 1999. So technically, they were in power for four years. But if the period due to the code of conduct is calculated-an average of between 45 and 60 days for every poll-the Sena-BJP combine ruled for barely three years. It is not without reason then that Thackeray ranted at frequent polls every time he went out to campaign. Indeed, D. Sankaran, chief election officer of Maharashtra in 1993-99, says barring 1994 there were elections in the state every year of his tenure.

MATERIAL WASTE: This year governments will lose 120 days to electioneering

For a better perspective of this increasing madness, consider the national picture. Since 1987, India has been burdened by elections every year. In these 16 years the country has seen 107 elections, including five for the Lok Sabha and 102 for the state assemblies. Even if one assumes that polls were conducted with around four states bunched at a time, for a minimum of 25 months governments and political parties were in election mode. Add the five parliamentary polls and the time lost would be 29 months. In effect for two-and-a-half years, the focus of governments and political parties was not on governance or growth but on electoral fortunes.

In fact, the current calendar year exemplifies the mess the best. The NDA Government had barely emerged from the Gujarat polls when on January 11, polls for Himachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, Nagaland and Tripura were announced. In about 90 days from now, polls for Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Rajasthan and Delhi will be announced. Effectively, neither major policy decisions nor reforms can be undertaken. Rather, governments will not function for 120 days this year. In other words, a third of this year, the Centre and state governments will focus not on the fundamental problems ailing the economy but on engineering electoral gains.

Already, thanks to the past and forthcoming polls the Centre has put off further disinvestment of public-sector units. The appointment of a regulator in the petroleum sector has been hanging fire since 2001 because an independent regulator will not be able to time hikes in petro product prices (as was done before the Himachal Pradesh polls) to suit political needs. The implementation of the Conditional Access System for cable TV subscribers, for instance, has been opposed not only by the Opposition but also NDA ally Shiv Sena and BJP's Madanlal Khurana. Similar has been the fate of the new value added tax (vat) regime. VAT is a much-needed instrument to correct the fiscal imbalance in the system and Finance Minister Jaswant Singh made provisions for this in his budget. But in the face of opposition both from within and outside, the NDA Government has put it on the back burner.

It is this stalling of reforms, the hampering of governance and pendency of critical concerns that has prompted Vice-President Bhairon Singh Shekhawat to moot a radical change in the political system. Shekhawat has suggested that elections to state assemblies and the Lok Sabha be held simultaneously once every five years and that these elections be held in the same month every five years. This would mean that members of the state assemblies and the Lok Sabha have a fixed five year tenure, all motions of no-confidence will be backed by a confidence motion in favour of an alternative arrangement and when this cannot be done (as in 1998 when the Lok Sabha voted out the Atal Bihari Vajpayee government) the elected houses would elect a leader to be either chief minister or prime minister directly.

Nothing in this proposal would shock the Anglo-Saxon world, which has been practising democracy since the 17th century. In the United States all elections are held on the first Monday of November every four years. The elected representatives in Germany are obligated to present an alternative formation if and when there is a move to vote out an existing government. And the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution headed by Justice M.N. Venkatachelliah has suggested in its report that "in a situation where no single political party or pre-poll alliance succeeds in securing a clear majority in the Lok Sabha after the elections, the rules of procedure may provide for the election of the leader of the House by the Lok Sabha along with the election of the Speaker and in the like manner". The same procedure could also be followed for the office of the chief minister when there is a hung verdict in the state assemblies.

On the face of it, most political parties agree that frequent elections have paralysed administration and have led to the stalling of development. RJD chief Laloo Prasad Yadav is all for it. "Besides saving money simultaneous polls will also help people elect their MPs and MLAs in the assembly segments under the same Lok Sabha constituency on the basis of the same manifesto, same agenda and same campaigning," he says. He feels it will, to some extent, end political instability and also help establish a social and political equation between the MPs and MLAs. But the question, says Laloo, is how to go about it.

TDP chief and Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister N. Chandrababu Naidu goes further. He feels the Constitution should be amended to ensure that elections to local bodies like municipalities and panchayats too are held in one year. "It is imperative we debate this if we are concerned about India's future," he says. "Only then can we leverage and focus on development in a sustained manner." Naidu adds that doubling the costs apart, the staggered polls hinder the regular functioning of the administration because the election machinery is drawn from it and causes delays and escalation in project costs.

PARTYSPEAK
	"The Congress is yet to hear about the proposals but it is open to debate." Ambika Soni, Congress
	"It is imperative we debate this if we are concerned about India's future." Chandrababu Naidu, Telugu Desam Party
	"We are willing to discuss it but it has to be an all-party decision." Praful Patel, NCP
	"The Congress is yet to hear "It's good thinking. All parties should ponder over it." Laloo Yadav, Rashtriya Janata Dal

Typically, Naidu's support is not without a caveat: "Advancing and holding simultaneous polls to Parliament and to the assemblies in some states have often been used for political expediency in our electoral history." It is a fear that haunts virtually every political party. The CPI(M) thinks it is not feasible "as the damage has been done", while Amar Singh of the Samajwadi Party welcomes the idea but considers it "impractical in the age of fractured mandates". Congress spokesman S. Jaipal Reddy feels the exercise is uncalled for: "Democracy like markets is an untidy system but is also self-corrective in nature. Intellectuals who live with untidy markets somehow want to tidy up democracy. It is futile."

The problem is that the proposal comes at a time when the NDA is at the fag end of its term and the BJP is trying to reinvent itself. So parties are viewing it with suspicion. Their contention: this is yet another attempt by the BJP to foist its failed ideas through the backdoor. A fixed term for elected representatives is an attempt to introduce a presidential form of government-it has been BJP's pet prescription for India's ills. The proposal to bring in an alternative formation along with a no-confidence motion had no takers in the 1998 debate, which Vajpayee lost by a vote. In short, they suspect the BJP is trying to change the rules of the game to score a goal.

Interestingly, the Congress is yet to officially debate and comment on the proposal. AICC General Secretary Ambika Soni says that "while the Congress has not heard formally from the Government, it is open to a debate". Soni also points out that frequent elections are a result not so much of a systemic flaw but the fact that parties with different ideological moorings come together for the sake of power.

Perhaps. But as with relatives, in politics you can't always choose your partners. Shekhawat's proposal accepts that democracy is untidy but aims at preventing it from becoming a mess. It is the self-corrective mechanism Reddy referred to and what political parties owe to the people who deign to elect them.

-with bureau reports