One Nation, One Election: A Story of Electoral Reforms in India

India, the world's largest democracy, has a long history of elections that stretch across various levels—parliamentary, state legislative assemblies, local bodies, and panchayats. The idea of One Nation, One Election (ONOE) is a significant reform proposal that seeks to synchronize elections across these levels to reduce the frequency of elections and bring about greater efficiency in governance. The idea has sparked significant debate in political, legal, and academic circles, raising questions about feasibility, constitutionality, and the broader impact on Indian democracy.

Historical Context of Electoral Reforms in India

India’s electoral system has evolved over decades since its independence in 1947. The first general election in India was held in 1951-52, a massive exercise for a nascent republic. At the time, both the parliamentary (Lok Sabha) and state legislative elections were held simultaneously. This pattern of simultaneous elections continued until 1967, when the cycle was disrupted due to the premature dissolution of some state assemblies. Over time, the fragmentation of election cycles resulted in elections being held at different times across various states and the national level.

Since then, electoral reforms in India have addressed various issues, including the introduction of electronic voting machines (EVMs), voter ID cards, and curbing corrupt practices. However, the staggering frequency of elections, with various states holding elections at different times, has resulted in several challenges, such as the diversion of government resources, policy paralysis, and a perpetual "election mode" atmosphere.

 

What is "One Nation, One Election"?

One Nation, One Election proposes to hold simultaneous elections for the Lok Sabha (House of the People) and the State Legislative Assemblies. The aim is to streamline the electoral process by conducting elections for both national and state governments in a synchronized manner, either on the same day or within a closely defined time frame. This reform seeks to address several key issues:

1. Frequent Elections: Currently, elections happen throughout the year in different states, leading to a constant election mode. This interrupts governance as political parties focus more on electioneering than on policy decisions.
2. Policy Continuity: Elections require the imposition of the Model Code of Conduct (MCC), which prohibits the government from announcing new policies or programs that could sway voters. Frequent elections mean frequent MCC periods, halting policy continuity.
3. Cost of Elections: The financial burden of conducting elections repeatedly is enormous. Each election requires resources for security, logistics, staff, and campaigning. Holding simultaneous elections could reduce these costs significantly.
4. Governance Efficiency: Frequent elections lead to a diversion of administrative resources and political attention. Simultaneous elections would enable both the political leadership and the bureaucracy to focus on governance rather than being distracted by constant election cycles.
5. Voter Fatigue: Repeated elections often lead to voter fatigue, lowering voter turnout in some instances. A synchronized election system could boost voter participation by concentrating the democratic exercise into a single period of focus.

Constitutional and Legal Challenges

Implementing ONOE faces significant constitutional and logistical challenges. The biggest obstacle lies in the staggered terms of the various state assemblies. Under the Indian Constitution, both the Lok Sabha and state assemblies have fixed five-year terms, but premature dissolutions, such as those caused by the collapse of a government, disrupt synchronization.

• Article 83 and 172 of the Constitution: These articles provide for the tenure of the Lok Sabha and the state assemblies, respectively. Any move towards simultaneous elections would require either amending these constitutional provisions or bringing all assemblies and the Lok Sabha in sync by dissolving some prematurely or extending the term of others, which raises democratic and legal concerns.
• Emergency Provisions: In case of a government’s failure to win a majority and subsequent dissolution, it would be difficult to re-align the election schedules without imposing some form of emergency provisions. This raises questions about the democratic rights of both the electorate and the legislature.
• Federal Structure: India’s Constitution recognizes a federal structure where the states and the central government function independently. Critics argue that ONOE could weaken the autonomy of the states, as they might be forced to follow the electoral timetable of the national government.
• Judicial Interpretation: The Indian judiciary has also played a significant role in shaping the electoral process, and any move toward simultaneous elections would likely face judicial scrutiny, especially with respect to the balance between federalism and centralization of the election process.

Feasibility and Implementation Strategies

Various committees and reports have examined the feasibility of ONOE. The Law Commission of India, in its 170th and 255th reports, recommended exploring the idea of simultaneous elections, but cautioned that it would require a comprehensive framework and significant amendments to the Constitution. In 2018, the NITI Aayog released a report suggesting possible strategies for implementation. The report recommended holding two sets of elections every five years—one for the national parliament and some state assemblies, and another for the remaining state assemblies, thereby gradually aligning the election cycles over time. Some proposed strategies include:

1. Gradual Synchronization: Instead of immediate nationwide synchronization, elections could be staggered in two phases, reducing the frequency of elections while allowing for eventual alignment.
2. Amending Tenure Provisions: The tenure of state assemblies could be curtailed or extended, through either amendments or consensus, to bring their election cycles in line with the national parliament.
3. Use of Technology: Leveraging technological solutions, such as advanced electronic voting and block-chain for election security, could make it easier to manage the logistical complexity of ONOE.

Arguments For and Against One Nation, One Election

Arguments in Favor:

1. Cost Efficiency: A major argument in favor of ONOE is the reduction of financial burden. The Election Commission of India spends thousands of crores on conducting elections. Holding elections together would significantly cut down costs.
2. Focus on Governance: With fewer election disruptions, both the central and state governments could focus more on governance and policy implementation without the constant pressure of upcoming elections.
3. Reduced Electoral Malpractices: Proponents argue that simultaneous elections would help curb vote-buying and other malpractices that thrive in a system where elections are held frequently.
4. Improved Voter Turnout: By focusing electoral attention on a single nationwide event, voter turnout might increase, as voters would not have to return to the polls' multiple times within a few years.

Arguments Against:

• Threat to Federalism: One of the most significant concerns is that ONOE could undermine India’s federal structure, giving more power to the central government and reducing the political autonomy of state governments.
• Logistical Challenges: Conducting elections for 900+ million voters across multiple tiers of government simultaneously would be a massive logistical challenge. Managing voter lists, polling stations, and electoral rolls in such a vast and diverse country may prove difficult.
• Dilution of Local Issues: Critics argue that simultaneous elections would dilute local issues in state elections, as national issues and personalities could overshadow regional concerns.
• Disruption of Democratic Process: Altering the terms of elected bodies—either by extending or curtailing them—would be seen as undemocratic by some, as it would infringe upon the democratic mandate of voters who elected those governments for fixed terms.

Conclusion

The idea of One Nation, One Election is undoubtedly one of the most ambitious electoral reform proposals in India. While it promises benefits such as reduced costs, improved governance, and greater focus on policy, its implementation poses significant constitutional, logistical, and political challenges. For ONOE to succeed, there would need to be broad political consensus, constitutional amendments, and an overhaul of electoral processes. Whether India moves in this direction remains to be seen, but the debate surrounding ONOE highlights the complexities of managing the electoral process in a diverse and dynamic democracy like India.