Hits and Misses in the One Nation, One Election Idea

Over the past decade, the government has embraced a series of “One Nation” policies aimed at replacing India’s diverse patchwork of state-specific policies with uniform, national schemes.

• From the Goods and Services Tax (“One Nation, One Tax”) to the portability of subsidised rations (“One Nation, One Ration Card”), the impulse has been toward centralisation and standardisation.
• Now, the government is pursuing: One nation, one election.

About One Nation, One Election’ (ONOE)

• Concept: The idea of ONOE proposes holding elections for the Lok Sabha and all State Legislative Assemblies simultaneously within a single election cycle.
• Historical Context: Simultaneous elections were conducted in 1951, 1957, 1962, and 1967 due to the dominance of a single political party.
  • This practice was disrupted in 1968–69 when political instability led to the early dissolution of some State Assemblies.
  • Since then, India has followed a staggered election cycle, with elections occurring at different times across states and for the Lok Sabha.
• Recent Developments: In March 2024, a committee chaired by former President Ram Nath Kovind formally endorsed the ONOE proposal.
  • Following this, the 129th Constitutional Amendment Bill was introduced in Parliament and is currently under review by a Joint Parliamentary Committee.
• Proposed Implementation: As a transitional step, the Bill proposes that around the 2029 Lok Sabha elections, State Assemblies whose terms have not yet expired (e.g., only 2-3 years completed) would be dissolved once to align all elections.
  • If any state government falls mid-term after synchronization (for example, in 2031), fresh elections would be held only for the remaining term to maintain alignment with the next full cycle (for example, in 2034).

Arguments in Support of ONOE

• Financial Savings: Conducting elections simultaneously would significantly reduce the immense expenditure on campaigns, rallies, and administrative costs borne by the Election Commission, as elections currently take place somewhere every year.
• Time Efficiency and Governance Focus: The time saved from continuous campaigning would allow political leaders to concentrate more on governance and policy implementation, rather than being perpetually engaged in electioneering.
• Reduced Disruption: The frequent imposition of the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) due to staggered elections often delays policy implementation and government functioning. 
  • A single election cycle would mean the MCC is in effect for a limited period once every five years, enhancing governance efficiency and Centre-State coordination.
• Voter Convenience: Migrants and students find it challenging to travel repeatedly to their hometowns to vote. 
  • ONOE would make voting easier for them, potentially reducing “voter fatigue” and increasing overall voter turnout.

Arguments Against ONOE

• Myth of Time Saving: The core issue is not the election calendar but the tendency of national leaders to campaign in every small state election, which is a choice, not a compulsion.
• Insignificant Cost Savings: The cost of conducting general elections is relatively small; for example, the 2014 Lok Sabha elections cost only 0.03% of India’s GDP, an affordable expense for maintaining democracy. 
  • True savings would come from political finance reforms, not merely ONOE.
• Security Force Strain: Simultaneous nationwide elections would necessitate an enormous deployment of security forces, potentially exceeding the available resources.
• Voter Engagement, Not Fatigue: The argument of voter fatigue is unfounded. Voters value their right to vote and use it to hold leaders accountable. 
  • State election turnouts often demonstrate increased voter participation, not decreased.
• Overstated MCC Impact: The Model Code of Conduct applies only to the state where elections are taking place, not the entire country. 
  • Furthermore, existing schemes continue during MCC; only new policy announcements are restricted for a brief period (30-40 days).
• Limited Benefit of Governments Fall: The proposed mechanism of holding elections for the “remaining term” if a government falls mid-way negates the fundamental premise of ONOE for that specific state, as elections would still occur outside the synchronized cycle.

Concerns for Democracy and Federalism

Beyond the practical weaknesses, ONOE raises profound concerns for India’s democratic and federal structure:

• Deviation from Westminster Model: The provision for elections to be held for “remaining terms” (e.g., 3 years instead of a full 5-year tenure) fundamentally contradicts the Westminster model, where a government remains in power as long as it commands a majority.
• Reduced Public Participation and Accountability: Fewer electoral opportunities (once every five years) would diminish the frequency with which citizens can engage in democratic processes and hold political leaders and the dominant party accountable.
• Risk of ECI Discretion Misuse: The 129th Constitutional Amendment Bill grants significant power to the Election Commission of India (ECI) to delay polls. 
  • This discretion carries a risk of potential misuse of Presidential power if elections are delayed, potentially leading to the imposition of President’s Rule.

Reforms to address the perceived issues with the current election system without resorting to ONOE

• Model Code of Conduct (MCC) Reform: Shorten the duration of the MCC to 20-25 days instead of the current 30-40 days.
• Political Finance Reforms: Implement stringent reforms in political financing, such as reducing the cap for anonymous donations from INR 20,000 to INR 2,000, to control campaign spending more effectively.
• One Nation Two Elections: The ECI can consider a model where Lok Sabha and State Assembly elections are held in two phases within a five-year cycle.
  • For example, conducting state elections during the Lok Sabha’s mid-term (after 2.5 years). This is seen as a more feasible alternative to a single, nationwide election.
• Reduce Election Phases: Decrease the number of phases for Lok Sabha elections (e.g., from seven phases to two) to expedite the election process and minimize the duration of the MCC.

Conclusion

Democracy is inherently a complex and often ‘messy’ process. 

• Attempting to find “shortcuts” through proposals like ONOE risks undermining the very spirit and foundational principles of India’s democratic system. 
• While the goals of efficiency and cost-saving are desirable, they should not come at the expense of democratic accountability, federal principles, and public participation.