One Nation, One Election: Benefits, challenges, way forward; all you need to know

The Union Cabinet of the Narendra Modi-led NDA government has today taken a major step toward implementing the "One Nation, One Election" initiative, approving the proposal to conduct simultaneous elections for both the Lok Sabha and state legislative assemblies. Reports suggest that the bill related to this will be tabled in the upcoming winter session of Parliament. This decision was based on the findings of a high-level committee led by former President Ram Nath Kovind, which was submitted to the Union Cabinet.

Earlier this year, in March, the committee under Kovind had recommended holding simultaneous elections for the Lok Sabha and state assemblies, along with synchronized local body elections within a 100-day window. In September, the government formally constituted this committee, which held consultations with various national and regional political parties, as well as experts and members of the public, to gather feedback.

The "One Nation, One Election" proposal has sparked debate over its potential impact on India's democratic framework and federal structure. Despite these concerns, the BJP-led NDA government, which has been a strong proponent of the concept, is pushing to move forward with the plan before the end of its current term. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has consistently supported the idea since his party's rise to power in 2014.

What is One Nation, One Election?

The core idea behind "One Nation, One Election" (ONOE) is to synchronize elections for both the central and state governments, holding them simultaneously every five years. The intent is to reduce the frequency of elections and thereby save time and resources.

This concept is not new; the Election Commission first proposed it in 1983. Until 1967, India regularly conducted simultaneous elections, but this practice was disrupted in 1968 and 1969 when several legislative assemblies were dissolved prematurely. The Lok Sabha, too, was dissolved in 1970 before completing its full term.

Global Context

Several countries hold simultaneous elections. In South Africa, both national and provincial elections are held every five years, with municipal elections scheduled two years later. Similarly, Sweden conducts national, provincial, and local elections every four years. The UK has a regular election schedule established by the Fixed-term Parliaments Act of 2011.

Benefits of One Nation, One Election

Governance: Frequent elections often lead to a shift in focus from governance to campaigning. By holding elections simultaneously, governments can concentrate on policy and administration without the distraction of repeated election cycles.

Reduced Cost and Resources: The financial burden of frequent elections has grown substantially. For instance, while the first general elections in 1951-52 cost around Rs 11 crore, the 2019 elections incurred an estimated cost of Rs 60,000 crore. ONOE could reduce these costs and streamline the use of resources, including law enforcement personnel, who are heavily involved in election duties.

Political Corruption: Frequent elections fuel the need for continuous fundraising, which can foster corruption. ONOE could reduce this by minimizing the number of election campaigns required over a five-year term.

Simplified Voting Process: Conducting simultaneous elections could streamline voter registration, reducing issues such as missing names from electoral rolls.

Stable State Finances: With less frequent elections, state governments may feel less pressure to announce populist measures, or freebies, to win voter support, leading to more stable financial management.

Challenges of One Nation, One Election

Constitutional Hurdles: The Indian Constitution currently mandates that both the Lok Sabha and state assemblies must serve five-year terms, unless dissolved earlier. If a government collapses mid-term, this could disrupt the synchronized election cycle and create logistical challenges.

Federalism Concerns: ONOE might conflict with the federal nature of India’s political system, reducing the autonomy of state governments. Additionally, the Law Commission has expressed doubts about the feasibility of simultaneous elections under the current constitutional framework.

Logistical Issues: Organizing ONOE would require significant resources, including a vast supply of electronic voting machines and trained personnel to oversee the process.

Democratic Representation: Frequent elections allow voters to voice their opinions regularly, holding governments accountable for their actions. ONOE might dilute this ability, reducing the regular feedback that elections provide.

Risk of Single-Party Dominance: Studies suggest that when elections are held simultaneously, there is a higher likelihood of the same party winning both the national and state elections, potentially undermining the distinction between local and national issues.

Economic and Legal Concerns: Implementing ONOE could require significant initial investment in electoral infrastructure. Additionally, some legal experts warn that the idea might conflict with constitutional principles, such as those emphasized in the landmark S.R. Bommai case, which underscores the independent role of state governments.

The Way Forward

For ONOE to succeed, it is crucial to build a broad consensus among political parties and state governments. Constitutional amendments would also be required to ensure the legality of the synchronized election process. Furthermore, significant investments in infrastructure—such as electronic voting machines and polling booths—will be necessary to make the plan viable.

A legal framework would also need to address potential disruptions, such as the collapse of governments mid-term, and voters would need to be educated about the benefits and challenges of simultaneous elections.

Previous attempts at holding simultaneous elections were made in India, with success in states such as Bihar, Bombay, and Madras until 1967. However, due to frequent premature dissolutions of state assemblies and coalition government collapses, the practice faded over time. The ONOE proposal seeks to revive and modernize this system, but it will require careful planning and widespread political support to move forward.