What is One Nation, One Election?
On Tuesday, December 17, two bills proposing a framework for simultaneous elections were introduced in the Lok Sabha amid intense debate. The Constitution (129th Amendment) Bill and the Union Territories Amendment Bill were passed via a division of votes, marking the debut of the electronic voting system in the new Parliament House.
The bills received 269 votes in favor and 198 against, following which the session was briefly adjourned.
The Cabinet had approved these bills last week to streamline election processes in the Union Territories of Jammu and Kashmir, Puducherry, and the NCT of Delhi. However, the amendments specify that simultaneous elections will not be implemented before 2034.
The idea of “One Nation, One Election” revolves around holding elections for the Lok Sabha (Parliament) and all State Legislative Assemblies simultaneously. Instead of conducting elections in a staggered fashion as is done today, this approach would allow voters to cast their ballots for both national and state-level elections on the same day or during a unified election period.
The primary motivation behind this concept is to streamline governance, curb the frequent disruptions caused by continuous elections, and significantly reduce the financial burden and administrative challenges associated with the current electoral system.
Simultaneous Elections in Post-Independence India (1952–1967)
Interestingly, India initially followed the practice of simultaneous elections. For the first three general elections—in 1952, 1957, and 1962—elections for the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies were conducted together.
During this period, several factors contributed to the success of simultaneous elections:
Aligned Timelines: Both the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies had synchronized five-year terms, which ensured elections were held at the same time.
Efficiency in Governance: Elections conducted together reduced disruptions to governance and administrative activities.
Political Stability: Governments at both the central and state levels generally completed their terms without premature dissolutions, maintaining electoral harmony.
Breakdown of Simultaneous Elections (1967–1971)
The system of synchronized elections began to unravel between 1967 and 1971 due to increasing political instability and the early dissolution of certain State Assemblies and the Lok Sabha.
Political Turmoil Post-1967:
The 1967 elections marked a turning point, as the Congress Party faced significant electoral challenges. Several non-Congress coalition governments emerged in states, but many of these coalitions were unstable and short-lived.
States like Haryana and West Bengal witnessed early dissolutions of their assemblies due to internal conflicts and the collapse of coalition governments.
Mid-term Parliamentary Elections in 1971:
The Fourth Lok Sabha, elected in 1967, was dissolved ahead of schedule, leading to mid-term parliamentary elections in 1971.
This further disrupted the synchronized electoral cycle, as states experienced separate political crises, resulting in deviations in their election schedules.
Frequent Use of President’s Rule:
The imposition of President’s Rule under Article 356 in various states added to the instability. This often led to premature elections or delays, breaking the unified timelines of elections across the country.
Emergence of Staggered Elections
Over time, India transitioned to the current system of staggered elections. Today, Assembly elections are held in different states at varying intervals, often mid-way through a Lok Sabha term.
Current Scenario:
Elections are now conducted almost every year, either for one or more State Assemblies or to fill vacant seats through by-elections.
Challenges of the Staggered System:
Governance Disruptions: The frequent imposition of the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) during elections puts a temporary halt on policy decisions and development work, affecting governance.
High Economic Costs: Repeated elections require massive expenditures on logistics, security arrangements, and manpower.
Election Fatigue: Continuous election cycles lead to fatigue among voters, political parties, and the administrative machinery.
The concept of One Nation, One Election aims to revive the practice of simultaneous elections to ensure administrative efficiency, minimize costs, and reduce governance disruptions. However, implementing this system in the current political and constitutional framework is far from simple.
Challenges such as synchronizing the terms of the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies, amending the Constitution, and building consensus among political parties must first be addressed.
While the concept draws inspiration from the stability of India’s early electoral years, transitioning back to this system would require thoughtful structural, legal, and procedural reforms.
Why “One Nation, One Election”?
The idea of “One Nation, One Election” proposes synchronizing elections for the Lok Sabha (national parliament) and state assemblies across India. This policy aims to address inefficiencies inherent in the current staggered election system. Below is an exploration of the key reasons behind advocating for this reform.
At just 18 years old, Gukesh Dommaraju has achieved what many can only dream of: he is now the youngest world chess champion in history. In a fiercely contested match against the reigning champion Ding Liren of China, Gukesh secured his place in the annals of chess history with a 7.5-6.5 victory in the World Chess Championship final held in Singapore. This victory not only earned him the prestigious title but also a massive $2.5 million prize, underscoring his meteoric rise in the chess world.
Lowering Election Expenditure
Elections in India are resource-intensive, both financially and administratively. Simultaneous elections could substantially reduce the recurring costs associated with the current multiple-election cycles.
Financial Savings: Repeated elections require the deployment of significant resources, including the Election Commission’s machinery, security forces, logistics, and infrastructure for ballot papers and Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs). Conducting all elections at once could streamline these expenditures, thus lightening the financial burden on the exchequer.
Optimizing Human Resources: Government employees, including teachers and security personnel, are frequently diverted from their regular duties to manage elections. Consolidating election schedules would allow these individuals to focus more on their primary responsibilities.
Minimizing Governance Disruptions
Frequent elections often interfere with administrative continuity and governance. A unified election calendar could significantly mitigate these disruptions.
Avoiding Governance Paralysis: Each election brings the enforcement of the Model Code of Conduct (MCC), which restricts policymakers from implementing new schemes. Multiple MCC phases throughout the year lead to delays in decision-making and project execution.
Reducing Law Enforcement Strain: Security personnel are repeatedly deployed for election duties, diverting them from their primary role of maintaining law and order. With a synchronized election cycle, security resources can be utilized more effectively.
Alleviating Voter Fatigue
Frequent elections can result in voter disengagement over time. A unified election approach seeks to make voting a more engaging and impactful process.
Easing Election Fatigue: Under the current system, voters are called upon multiple times in a short span for various elections. A single, comprehensive electoral process can simplify participation, making it less burdensome for citizens.
Improving Voter Turnout: Fewer but well-coordinated elections can inspire greater voter interest, potentially increasing turnout and strengthening democratic participation.
Accelerating Development and Governance
Simultaneous elections could provide a stable governance framework, allowing governments to focus on sustained development initiatives without interruptions.
Ensuring Policy Continuity: With reduced election-related disruptions, governments at both central and state levels can prioritize long-term planning and effective implementation of policies.
Encouraging Investments: A predictable governance cycle reduces uncertainties, fostering an environment conducive to private sector investment and smoother execution of public projects.
Aligning Development Goals: A synchronized mandate can create synergy between central and state governments, minimizing policy conflicts and promoting cohesive development efforts.
The concept of “One Nation, One Election” holds the promise of fostering a more efficient democratic process, optimizing resources, and ensuring uninterrupted governance. Although implementing this policy comes with logistical and constitutional challenges, it has the potential to transform India’s electoral landscape by paving the way for better governance and accelerated national progress.
Challenges in Implementing One Nation, One Election (ONOE)
Need for Constitutional Amendments
Implementing ONOE necessitates significant changes to several constitutional provisions. For instance, Articles 83 and 172 would need to be amended to synchronize the tenures of the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies. Additionally, Articles 85 and 174, which outline the powers of the President and Governors to dissolve houses and convene legislative sessions, would require modifications. Furthermore, Article 356 must be re-evaluated to address situations where State Governments are dismissed, ensuring that synchronized election cycles are not disrupted. Since such amendments demand a special majority in Parliament along with ratification by at least half of the state legislatures, the process is not only procedurally intricate but also politically challenging.
Challenges to the Federal Structure
India’s federal structure emphasizes the autonomy of states in certain legislative matters. The ONOE framework raises concerns about encroaching upon this autonomy. Many states might view it as an infringement on their rights, leading to resistance. Moreover, simultaneous elections risk overshadowing regional issues during state elections, as national narratives might dominate. This could weaken the democratic representation of state-specific concerns. Additionally, regional political parties that rely on local issues to connect with voters may perceive ONOE as a threat to their relevance.
Logistical and Infrastructural Complexities
The logistical challenges of conducting simultaneous elections across the entire country are immense. Managing the deployment of millions of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) and Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trails (VVPATs) for such large-scale voting is a herculean task. Furthermore, maintaining, testing, and securely storing this enormous inventory requires robust infrastructure.
On top of this, election officials and poll workers across the nation would need extensive training to handle the complexities of simultaneous elections. Coordinating elections across 28 states and 8 Union Territories, each with unique geographical, demographic, and administrative challenges, adds another layer of difficulty. Security concerns also come into play, as ensuring a smooth, safe, and interference-free election process would demand unprecedented deployment of resources and security personnel within a limited timeframe.
Lack of Political Consensus
The success of ONOE depends heavily on the political will of various stakeholders. Achieving consensus is challenging, as different political parties may have conflicting interests. For instance, regional parties fear that simultaneous elections could dilute their focus on local issues, reducing their electoral impact. Similarly, national parties might have varying stakes depending on their performance across states at any given time.
Additionally, aligning the terms of the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies would require either curtailing or extending the tenures of certain legislative bodies. This could raise concerns about fairness and democratic integrity among political stakeholders. Furthermore, the lack of trust and cohesion between political parties could hinder the collaborative effort needed to implement such a transformative reform.
In conclusion, while the idea of ONOE promises benefits like reduced election costs and less frequent disruptions, its implementation poses formidable constitutional, political, logistical, and federal challenges.
Arguments Against One Nation, One Election (Onoe)
Regional Disparities
Overshadowing State-Specific Issues:
Simultaneous elections often shift the spotlight to national issues, sidelining pressing state-specific concerns. For instance, voters may focus on broader topics such as foreign relations or national economic policies while neglecting local challenges like water shortages, agricultural crises, or unemployment in certain regions. This approach can result in political parties adopting a generalized campaign strategy, overlooking the unique needs of individual states.
Regional parties, which primarily address localized issues, may find it challenging to compete with national parties that dominate the electoral narrative during synchronized polls. This could further marginalize state-level priorities in the larger political discourse.
Imbalance in Representation:
States with smaller populations or distinct cultural and linguistic identities may feel underrepresented when national elections dominate public attention. For example, specific concerns of northeastern states or union territories could remain unaddressed. This imbalance might create a sense of neglect among regions that rely on focused representation.
Threat to Democratic Federalism:
India’s federal structure thrives on its diverse regional voices. However, simultaneous elections risk homogenizing the political landscape, potentially compromising the ability of states to independently tackle their local issues. Aligning state and national elections could dilute the autonomy of states, a key feature of India’s federal governance.
Challenges of Midterm Dissolutions
Logistical Complexities:
The possibility of a government—whether at the state or central level—falling before its term ends presents significant challenges. For instance, should fresh elections be conducted immediately for the dissolved government, disrupting the synchronized election cycle? Alternatively, should the government function under a caretaker setup until the next scheduled elections? The latter approach could lead to prolonged periods of limited accountability, undermining democratic principles.
Impact on Stability:
Frequent dissolutions could result in numerous by-elections, negating the cost and efficiency benefits promised by the “One Nation, One Election” (ONOE) system. Moreover, imposing President’s Rule in states for extended periods could weaken public trust in democratic institutions and raise concerns about state autonomy.
Risks to Policy Continuity:
A mismatch in the electoral cycle—for example, if the central government dissolves early while states continue their tenure—might create governance challenges. Policies, particularly those requiring coordinated implementation between state and central governments, could suffer from misalignment, disrupting welfare programs and development initiatives.
Voter Engagement
Reduced Political Awareness:
Frequent elections keep the electorate engaged with political processes and issues. With elections taking place every five years under ONOE, there may be fewer opportunities for voters to participate actively in political discourse. For instance, staggered elections often provide timely feedback to governments, allowing for mid-course corrections. A single electoral event every five years may limit this feedback mechanism.
Diminished Accountability:
Regular elections serve as a constant reminder for governments to stay accountable to their constituents. By consolidating elections into one cycle, there is a risk that governments might face reduced scrutiny during their tenure, resulting in less pressure to perform effectively.
Impact on Grassroots Democracy:
Although local elections (such as municipal or panchayat polls) would still be held periodically, the absence of frequent state or national elections might reduce overall voter engagement at higher levels. Voters could experience “election fatigue” at the grassroots level, while the reduced frequency of larger elections might dilute their involvement in state or national governance issues.
Loss of Public Interest in Governance:
In staggered elections, political campaigns, debates, and media coverage provide consistent opportunities for public education and engagement on governance matters. Simultaneous elections, on the other hand, would concentrate these activities into a short timeframe, potentially leading to a lack of sustained political interest and awareness during non-election years.
proposed solutions for the “One Nation, One Election” (ONOE) framework:
Phased Implementation
Proposal: Begin by piloting the ONOE model with cluster-level simultaneous elections in a few states before implementing it nationwide.
Benefits:
Helps address logistical challenges and tests the system in a controlled environment.
Identifies potential issues and refines solutions before scaling up.
Reduces resistance by demonstrating proof of concept and feasibility.
Execution:
Select states with similar electoral cycles or manageable synchronization gaps.
Use insights from these trials to craft a roadmap for nationwide implementation.
Strengthening the Election Commission
Proposal: Institutional reforms in the Election Commission of India (ECI) to handle the increased logistical and operational demands of ONOE.
Benefits:
Ensures the ECI has the capacity to conduct larger and more complex elections.
Improves credibility, efficiency, and transparency.
Specific Reforms:
Allocate increased funding for manpower, technology, and infrastructure.
Deploy advanced election technologies, such as centralized voter databases and tamper-proof EVMs.
Establish regional hubs to manage simultaneous elections across multiple states.
Consensus Building
Proposal: Facilitate discussions and deliberations with all stakeholders, including political parties, civil society organizations, and state governments.
Benefits:
Ensures broader buy-in and minimizes resistance.
Addresses concerns about federalism, regional autonomy, and implementation feasibility.
Key Steps:
Organize forums and consultations to discuss the potential benefits and drawbacks of ONOE.
Build trust by addressing fears of political or logistical dominance by any one entity.
Highlight benefits such as reduced election costs and better policy continuity.
Global Perspectives
Countries like Sweden and South Africa, which conduct simultaneous elections, offer valuable lessons in managing large-scale electoral processes efficiently. By analyzing their approaches, India can adopt practices that enhance its own electoral system.
Sweden:
Simultaneous Elections: In Sweden, national parliamentary elections (Riksdag), regional elections for County Councils, and municipal elections are all held on the same day. This integrated strategy not only boosts voter turnout but also reduces the overall cost of conducting elections.
Key Takeaways for India:
Centralized Election Planning: Sweden’s approach highlights the importance of centralizing the election process to streamline planning and reduce redundancies. Given India’s multi-tiered electoral system, adopting a more coordinated approach in scheduling and resource allocation could bring significant benefits.
Optimizing Resources: By ensuring that polling stations, staff, and materials are shared across multiple elections, Sweden maximizes efficiency. India could similarly optimize its use of polling booths and manpower, particularly in urban areas, to cater to simultaneous elections.
South Africa:
Simultaneous Elections: South Africa conducts national, provincial, and municipal elections on the same day, simplifying voter engagement and ensuring a comprehensive approach to governance across various levels.
Key Takeaways for India:
Enhanced Voter Education: South Africa runs extensive voter education campaigns to ensure that voters understand the various elections occurring simultaneously. India could follow suit, focusing on educating rural voters about the different types of elections and their significance.
Efficient Logistics Management: South Africa has developed robust logistical systems for managing simultaneous elections. India can take a page from this book by further improving its logistics, particularly with technology for voter identification, security, and result counting, to ensure smooth execution during multi-phase elections.
Technology and Logistics:
Both Sweden and South Africa integrate technology to streamline electoral processes, such as voter registration and ballot counting. India can leverage advancements in electronic voting systems, biometric verification, and centralized result processing to accelerate its election processes. Additionally, both countries emphasize thorough poll worker training, which is essential for handling multiple elections on the same day. India can benefit from regularly training its election staff, especially during simultaneous elections in different states or regions.
Voter Turnout and Engagement:
Simultaneous elections in both Sweden and South Africa have led to higher voter turnout by simplifying the voting process and encouraging participation across various categories. India, too, could adopt more engaging outreach campaigns, targeting youth and marginalized communities, to boost turnout during simultaneous elections.
Legal and Political Challenges:
Sweden and South Africa have established legal frameworks to synchronize their elections. In India, however, legal and constitutional challenges may arise when consolidating election dates, particularly concerning the independence of state elections. Addressing these challenges would be necessary to synchronize central, state, and local elections.
By incorporating the efficient practices of countries like Sweden and South Africa, India can enhance its election management system, making it more cost-effective, efficient, and inclusive.
Way Forward
To effectively advocate for a national debate on the concept of One Nation, One Election (ONOE), several steps can be taken to facilitate informed discussions and decision-making:
National Debate Advocacy
Fostering Public Discourse: A key initial step would be to organize conferences, seminars, and media campaigns aimed at raising awareness and stimulating informed dialogue. These initiatives should highlight both the potential benefits and challenges of implementing ONOE, ensuring that a wide range of perspectives is heard.
Engaging Expert Panels: To deepen understanding, it would be beneficial to involve political analysts, constitutional scholars, and other experts who can present research and data on the possible impacts of ONOE. Their insights would explore how the proposed system could affect the electoral process, the federal structure, and overall governance efficiency.
Leveraging Social Media: In today’s digital age, social media platforms can be instrumental in engaging the public. By creating online discussions and sharing information, we can ensure that diverse voices, from different regions and social groups, are included in the conversation.
Forming a Parliamentary Committee
Presenting a Formal Proposal: A structured way to take the debate forward would be to propose a resolution in Parliament for the formation of a dedicated committee. This committee could focus on the feasibility of ONOE, examining key aspects such as constitutional implications, resource management, and necessary reforms to make the system viable.
Ensuring Balanced Representation: It is crucial that the committee be composed of representatives from a wide range of political parties and experts. This diverse representation would help ensure a balanced view of the impact ONOE might have on various regions and governance levels across the country.
Engaging in Cross-Sector Consultation: The committee should also seek input from state governments, electoral commission representatives, and political stakeholders. This would provide a comprehensive understanding of the regional and local implications of ONOE.
Balancing Efficiency with Federal Structure
Reviewing Constitutional Implications: A thorough review of the constitution should be conducted by constitutional experts to determine how ONOE could be implemented without compromising the autonomy of state governments or the balance of power in the federal system.
Adopting a Decentralized Approach: To address concerns about the potential erosion of states’ powers, mechanisms could be proposed to safeguard the federal structure. This might include ensuring that states retain control over regional elections and local governance, preventing ONOE from undermining regional representation.
Incorporating Public Input: Finally, to maintain the democratic nature of the process, it is essential to involve the public through consultations or even referendums. This would allow citizens to express their views and ensure that any proposed changes align with the nation’s federal principles.
By following these steps, the goal is to foster a well-informed, inclusive debate that carefully considers both the benefits of ONOE and the importance of preserving India’s federal governance system.
Conclusion
The idea of implementing “One Nation, One Election” offers several potential advantages. For one, it could help reduce election fatigue, leading to significant savings in both time and resources.
Additionally, holding elections simultaneously at the national and state levels could bring about a more synchronized governance process, making the political landscape more streamlined and efficient. This unified approach might also foster increased voter participation and allow the nation to focus more on pressing development issues.
That being said, we must also recognize the substantial challenges associated with overhauling India’s electoral system. Among these challenges are the logistical difficulties, the need for constitutional amendments, and the possibility of disrupting the delicate balance of power between national and state governments.
Overcoming these obstacles will require thorough planning, building broad consensus, and crafting innovative solutions that respect India’s political diversity.
As we move forward, it is essential to embrace electoral reforms that enhance efficiency without compromising the core democratic values of representation, fairness, and inclusivity.
Achieving this transition will require a collective effort from policymakers, political parties, and citizens alike. By working together, we can modernize our electoral system, strengthening our democracy and ensuring it better reflects the aspirations of every Indian citizen.
Pingback: Salman Ali Agha and Saim Ayub: The Dynamic Duo Behind Pakistan's Thrilling ODI Victory - The Info Platform
Thanks for sharing. I read many of your blog posts, cool, your blog is very good.