Simultaneous Elections: A Boon or Bane for Democracy?

Key economists debated over simultaneous elections in India, with Finance Commission Chairman Arvind Panagariya supporting the idea for stability and economic growth, while others like Montek Singh Ahluwalia doubted its economic merits. The proposal seeks reduced election frequency but faces opposition on fiscal and democratic grounds.

The idea of simultaneous elections has sparked a debate between prominent economists as discussions continue in Parliament. Finance Commission Chairman Arvind Panagariya supports the proposal, suggesting it would reduce policy disruption and boost economic stability. He argues that holding national and state elections together would encourage private investments and eliminate populist expenditure.

On the contrary, former Planning Commission deputy chairman Montek Singh Ahluwalia expressed skepticism towards the economic benefits claimed by proponents of simultaneous polls. Ahluwalia argues that frequent elections do not necessarily harm the economy and points out the separation of national and state issues in shaping public agenda during polls.

Economist Surjit Bhalla endorsed the 'one nation, one election' concept, with a suggestion for synchronizing state elections to the Lok Sabha's mid-term. While acknowledging the financial burdens of staggered elections, Bhalla and Panagariya share concerns about their indirect costs and potential for growth stimulation via synchronised polls.

(With inputs from agencies.)