of seats at stake and the number of evms required and number of personnel required, all of that, you have it once. what’s to prevent one of these governments falling again six months, nine months from now, if your only solution is keep president’s rule until the next election cycle is due, that’s undemocratic. that would surely be violating of the basic principles of the constitution. so, i don’t see that this is a feasible reform, let alone whether it’s desirable or not. because as i say, i mean once the mirror has cracked, you cannot possibly be set together again and get an accurate reflection. nidhi razdan: mr. nariman, if i could get your comment on this idea of simultaneous polls. do you see it as an attempt in a sense to homogenize everything one nation, one election, one leader, dare i say maybe no elections? fali nariman: one president. the whole point is that because it’s a moving towards a presidential system of government, i have convinced that it is at some point of time and therefore we have to be extraordinari- ly careful if we are saying we are democratic and we hold elections and so on. and what shashi tharoor rightly points out the election bonds syndrome is a very, very dangerous syndrome because it’s only the big money bags who can then with whom the ruling party, whichever it is, whether it’s congress or it’s the bjp, they align itself to, and that’s the greatest danger in our country because you see the whole world today is getting more and more autocratic. and it’s time that we take note of this trend and see what we can do to reverse it. and one of the most important parts of it is the chapter on elections in the constitution, what sort of laws we need. shashi tharoor: if i may just add given, and we’ve already talked about some of this, given the hollowing out of our democratic institutions and practices, we haven’t even mentioned how parliament has been reduced to rubber stamp. given all of that, elections are actually the only vehicle for popular accountability, for holding governments accountable for their performance and therefore to reduce their number and frequen- cy itself is undemocratic because the more elections you have, the more opportunity you have to register your views about the government in a concurrent way. in some ways fali saab, a presidential system would be more honest. at least you’ll have an independent legislature. right now, we have the worst of both worlds. we have a parliamentary system being run presidentially and the parliament is completely toothless. fali nariman: in a presidential system, we won’t be able to have a meeting like this. shashi tharoor: well, that’s a different argument we need to have because i do believe that the logic of the presidential system is complete separation of powers. the executive would not be formed by the legis- lation, therefore couldn’t control it. but that’s a different conversation. nidhi razdan: you’re talking about the us system. dr. quraishi, your views of simultaneous polls not being feasible. dr. quraishi: actually, the government report, there was a prelimi- nary committee which says that it should be simultaneous, but one basic flaw in the whole argument. initially prime minister said that all three tiers should be simultaneous, but gradually 3 million panchayat elected person they forgot about. that left us with 4,120 mlas & 543 mps. so, it is a dilution of the proposal. then the parliamentary committee and the niti aayog committee come out with a proposal, alright, if not once in five years, let’s do two in five years with that kind of dilution, what moral authority is left in the proposal and then what we hear, look from the beginning, for the first 10 years, there used to be simultaneous election. yes, that’s part of history. but what happened in the 11th year because states started falling, we started having separate election. then finally, among various arguments, there are pros and cons of this. as one mp said, ask the people what do they want? they love elections because that is the only power they have. and the money, if they said it’ll save money. now the 60,000 crores which was spent shekhar gupta shekhar gupta it’s very important for a voter to go to a booth, get that privacy and get a sense of security. so over time, election after election, that has improved. those are things that are good and i would say by and large are fair. there are two problems. one is a problem that election committee doesn’t have to address. that’s a problem that the supreme court has to address. by the politicians, it was recycled. it went to the poor people, the labourer, the painter, the auto drivers. so actually, it is doing good to the economy. and i had a very interesting slogan by a girl in a youth parliament in pune. jab jab chunav aata hai, garib ke peth mein pulao aata hai (whenever elections are held, the poor are fed well). otherwise, how many times we have seen the mp or mla disappear for five years. so therefore, because of repeated election, they have to go back again and again. and finally, they should know now there are only two or three the stakeholders who will be affected by frequency. suppose the election is happening in, does it affect you or me? we won’t even know that the election is happening, only the political party who’s contesting and the elec- tion commission because we have to be there, everywhere. and the media. media should be happy because this gives you work. about s y quraishi is a former chief election commissioner, a former haryana cadre officer; a prolific author and political commentator. destination india | november 2023 | 17