India's democratic environment is witnessing a major debate regarding the suggestion of "One Nation, One Election" (ONOE), which seeks to align elections for the Lok Sabha, state legislatures, and local bodies into one event every five years. While the government promotes this shift as a step towards efficiency and lower costs of elections, opposition parties and critics say it risks undermining federalism, representation of regions, and democratic diversity. This article examines the reasoning behind the proposal, its merits, and the reasons people resist it.
Understanding One Nation, One Election
The notion of ONOE is also not unfamiliar to India. Between 1951 and 1967, Lok Sabha and state assembly elections were conducted concurrently. Political instability, such as defections and government dismissals under Article 356 of the Constitution, ended this practice. The present proposal aims to restart this system by synchronizing all elections in the nation into one single cycle.
Under ONOE, elections would be held only once in five years for national and state legislatures. The proposal also suggests holding local body elections within 100 days of national elections to further streamline governance. To enact this policy, major constitutional amendments are needed, such as alterations to Articles 83(2), 172, and 324.
Why the Government Supports ONOE
The government has listed a number of benefits of ONOE:
-
Cost-Effectiveness: Regular elections entail huge amounts of money for conducting polls and mobilizing security personnel. By rationalizing electoral cycles, ONOE would be able to save this amount considerably. For example, simultaneous elections until 2029 would cost ₹7,951 crore—a figure considered feasible against staggered polls.
-
Policy Stability: Regular enforcement of the Model Code of Conduct during elections derails governance and slows down development projects. ONOE guarantees continuous governance by avoiding election-related disruptions.
-
Administrative Streamlining: A harmonized electoral process would be more efficient through avoidance of duplication in voter roll preparation and campaign infrastructure. It would also reduce the fatigue among voters due to repetitive polling events.
Supporters further contend that ONOE will enable governments to think long-term, not short-term, electoral cycles.
Resistance by Opposition Parties
Even with its seeming advantages, ONOE has encountered fierce opposition from opposition parties and critics. Out of 47 political parties that were consulted on the proposal, 32 endorsed it while 15 opposed it. Some of the major concerns are:
-
Threat to Federalism: Critics claim that holding simultaneous elections would dominate regional issues with national campaigns, eroding state autonomy. Regional parties are afraid of being pushed to the sidelines as voters may focus on national stories rather than local issues.
-
Risk of Single-Party Dominance: National parties with more resources and exposure may be benefited by simultaneous elections, possibly pushing regional parties to the periphery. This could turn India's diverse political discourse monolithic.
-
Constitutional Challenges: ONOE necessitates changes in several constitutional provisions that determine election timing and legislatures' terms. These are perceived by opposition parties as undermining India's federal structure and democratic accountability.
-
Logistical Complications: Coordination of electoral periods over India's expansive geography presents serious logistical challenges. Voter turnout is feared to be compromised because of the sheer magnitude of such an undertaking.
ONOE has been characterized by opposition leaders as undemocratic and a step towards concentrating power. Congress leader Mallikarjun Kharge has labeled it an attempt to "throttle democracy," with others drawing parallels with a step towards dictatorship.
Legal Challenges and Implementation Complications
Implementation of ONOE is beset by legal and logistical challenges:
-
Constitutional Amendments: Articles controlling the term of legislatures have to be amended by special majorities in Parliament and ratification by at least half of India's states—a process complicated by political opposition.
-
Mid-Term Breakdowns: Governments tend to break down mid-term through no-confidence motions or other issues. With ONOE, new elections would coincide with the next synchronized cycle, a possibility which critics find undemocratic.
-
Logistical Readiness: Holding simultaneous elections demands massive resources, such as extra voting machines and security officials. Providing voter comfort in the face of such huge-scale logistics continues to be a tall order.
Possible Ways Forward
To meet these challenges without sacrificing democratic principles, a number of strategies have been suggested:
-
Pilot Programs: Simultaneous elections could be tested in a few states to determine pitfalls before implementing them nationwide.
-
Public Awareness Campaigns: Informing citizens of the advantages of ONOE might generate wider support.
-
Consensus Building: Involving all political players in negotiations is essential to ensuring equitable implementation without benefiting any party or ideology.
A phased implementation—with initial partial adoption in a number of states—could yield insights for fine-tuning the policy before expanding nationwide.
Conclusion
The debate on "One Nation, One Election" is a reflection of a conflict between efficiency-oriented reforms and fears regarding the maintenance of India's federal nature and democratic pluralism. While the administration boasts its merits in terms of cost-effectiveness and policy cohesion, opponents foresee dangers such as centralization and sidelining regional voices.
Success with ONOE rests on careful planning, legal simplification, and political agreement. As India winds its way through this complicated phenomenon, it must balance delicately between simplification of governance and protecting its flourishing democracy. It is only up to the performance of these problems in the next few years if ONOE lives up to itself or stays just an ambitious suggestion.
Source: Sleepy Classes IAS, PWOnlylAS, Vajiram & Ravi, Economic Times, Clear Tax, India Today, Indian School Of Public Policy, Next IAS, Times Of India
