“One Nation One Election”: U.P. has seen 19 Lok Sabha, assembly polls in 35 years

Uttar Pradesh, which has witnessed a Lok Sabha or a state legislative assembly election after every two to three years in the past 35 years, may turn out to be an important case study for the “One Nation One Election” (ONOE) project amid indications that more elections may mean more pre-poll promises and more post-poll spending on freebies.

There have been 10 Lok Sabha polls and nine assembly elections in Uttar Pradesh since 1989. In the past 35-year period, 16 years have been election years in the state. This number will go up further if the elections to panchayat raj and urban local bodies institutions, held during the period, are also considered.

No wonder, Uttar Pradesh has witnessed more poll promises and freebies during the period (1989-2024) with more than once loan waiver for farmers, distribution of unemployment allowance, free power to farmers and distribution of laptops.

After simultaneous elections to the Lok Sabha and U.P. legislative assembly in 1989 and 1991, the state had an assembly election in 1993. The elections to the Lok Sabha and state legislative assembly were held in the same year in 1996 for the last time. If the data relied on by the high-level committee (HLC) committee on “One Nation One Election” issue and possible explanation given therein for the same is considered the higher the number of elections, the greater the degree of freebies.

“Fiscal deficit at the Centre rises at a larger rate after simultaneous elections compared to non-simultaneous elections. On average, the two-year difference-in-differences is 1.28 pp of GDP higher fiscal deficit following simultaneous elections compared to non-simultaneous elections. This exercise is also repeated at the state level. On average, the 1-year pre-post in fiscal deficit difference in difference is estimated at 1.68 pp of GDP higher for simultaneous election episodes, and the two-year difference in difference is estimated at 2.29 Pl of GDP. Both difference in difference estimates for each state (include U.P.) is positive.

Taken together, the results are broadly in line with national level analysis; suggestive of relatively larger increases in spending by state government post elections, or relatively lower spending pre-elections, for simultaneous election episodes. One potential explanation could be that the higher the number of elections, greater the degree of freebies and pre-election promises which would raise government spending. Higher public spending post elections is also consistent with the evidence for relatively higher growth rates post simultaneous election episodes relative to non-simultaneous elections,” observes the HLC report.

About the GDP growth, the HLC report says, “Comparing changes in real national GDP growth before and after episodes of simultaneous and non-simultaneous elections, the estimates suggest that on average, real GDP growth is higher following episodes of simultaneous elections, while we find a decrease post the non-simultaneous episodes.”

HLC has also observed, “Frequent elections result in the prolonged enforcement of the Model Code of Conduct, resulting in policy paralysis and governance deficit.”

Professor Yashvir Tyagi, former head of department of economics at Lucknow University said, “The HLC analysis based on past data has concluded that the one single poll is likely to result in higher GDP and GSDP as also lower inflation, and higher public capital expenditure, all these are good for the economy. However, their results also show that the fiscal deficit may be higher.”