The
concept of One Nation, One Election has reemerged as a focal point of India’s
political discourse, marking a bold yet contentious step toward restructuring
the nation’s electoral processes. On December 12, 2024, the Union Cabinet,
under the leadership of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, approved draft
legislation aimed at implementing simultaneous elections for the Lok Sabha,
state legislative assemblies, and local bodies within 100 days. This historic
move seeks to address the challenges posed by the current fragmented electoral
schedule, reduce administrative and economic burdens, and enhance the
efficiency of governance. However, the initiative is not without its complexities
and detractors, with constitutional, logistical, and political hurdles
threatening its smooth implementation.
At
its core, the One Nation, One Election initiative aims to streamline the
electoral schedules of various tiers of governance—national, state, and
local—into a unified timeline. This reform seeks to replace the staggered and
frequent election cycles with synchronized elections, thereby reducing costs,
minimizing administrative disruptions, and mitigating the extended enforcement
of the Model Code of Conduct, which often delays developmental activities. The
draft legislation incorporates 11 key recommendations from a high-level
committee led by former President Ram Nath Kovind. Among its suggestions is a
phased approach, with the first phase synchronizing Lok Sabha and state
assembly elections, followed by municipal and panchayat polls within a 100-day
window.
A
significant aspect of the proposed reforms is the introduction of new
constitutional amendments. Articles 324A and 325 are among the proposed
provisions aimed at enabling simultaneous elections and creating unified voter
rolls for a streamlined electoral process. Furthermore, substantial amendments
to existing articles, including Articles 83, 85, 172, 174, and 356, will be
necessary to align the tenures of different legislative bodies. These
amendments, requiring ratification by a majority of state legislatures,
represent a monumental undertaking, necessitating both political consensus and
legal precision. In addition, a second bill seeks to align the terms of
legislative assemblies in union territories—such as Delhi, Puducherry, and
Jammu and Kashmir—with the Lok Sabha and state assemblies, through amendments
to existing laws. Notably, this bill would not require constitutional
ratification, making it comparatively easier to implement.
While
the government envisions this reform as a means to strengthen governance and
economic efficiency, critics argue that it oversimplifies India’s complex
federal structure. Synchronizing elections requires addressing the challenge of
mid-term dissolutions of legislative bodies. If a Lok Sabha or state assembly
is dissolved prematurely due to a hung house or a no-confidence motion, fresh
elections would be held only for the unexpired term of the dissolved body,
creating potential governance gaps. Additionally, critics argue that holding
national and state elections simultaneously could dilute local issues and
overshadow regional representation due to the dominance of national narratives.
Opposition parties like the Indian National Congress have expressed
reservations, accusing the government of attempting to centralize power and
divert attention from broader electoral integrity concerns. Meanwhile, other
political entities, such as Telangana’s Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS), have
adopted a cautious stance, seeking greater clarity before endorsing or opposing
the initiative.
The
economic rationale behind One Nation, One Election is a central pillar of its
advocacy. Frequent elections in India incur significant financial and
administrative costs, ranging from security and logistics to the deployment of
electoral machinery and personnel. Consolidating these expenses into a single
synchronized electoral cycle could alleviate much of this burden, allowing
resources to be redirected toward developmental priorities. Additionally,
reducing the prolonged enforcement of the Model Code of Conduct—which prohibits
policy announcements and major projects during election periods—could enhance
governance continuity and accelerate developmental initiatives.
Despite
its purported advantages, the logistical challenges of implementing
simultaneous elections cannot be overstated. The Election Commission of India
(ECI) would need to mobilize extensive resources, including additional
electronic voting machines (EVMs) and voter verifiable paper audit trails
(VVPATs), alongside recruiting and training vast numbers of polling staff.
Establishing the necessary infrastructure and ensuring nationwide readiness
within the proposed 100-day timeframe is an immense undertaking. Moreover, the
synchronization of subsequent elections following the reform’s implementation
requires precise mechanisms to avoid disruptions caused by political
uncertainties.
The
political dimension of the reform is equally complex. Achieving the required
constitutional amendments and building consensus among political parties—many
of which hold divergent regional and ideological interests—poses a formidable
challenge. Critics warn that simultaneous elections could disproportionately
benefit larger national parties, such as the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party
(BJP), while marginalizing regional parties that rely on local issues to secure
electoral mandates. Furthermore, opposition leaders argue that the initiative
risks undermining the federal structure of India’s democracy by imposing a
homogenized electoral framework that may not account for regional variations
and priorities.
Historically,
the idea of simultaneous elections is not new. Between 1951 and 1967, India
conducted elections to the Lok Sabha and state assemblies concurrently.
However, the dissolution of some state assemblies and the Lok Sabha in the
years that followed disrupted this alignment, leading to the staggered
electoral cycles seen today. Over the decades, several committees and reports,
beginning with the Election Commission’s recommendations in 1983, have
revisited the idea of One Nation, One Election, emphasizing its potential to
enhance governance efficiency and reduce costs. Despite these arguments, the
reform has consistently encountered resistance due to its inherent
complexities.
The
Union Cabinet’s recent approval of the draft legislation marks a significant
step forward for the One Nation, One Election initiative, yet it remains to be
seen whether the government can navigate the numerous constitutional and
logistical challenges that lie ahead. The proposal to exclude local body
elections from the initial implementation phase indicates a pragmatic approach,
focusing on synchronizing Lok Sabha and state assembly elections first before
expanding to municipal and panchayat polls. However, this phased approach also
underscores the scale of the undertaking, reflecting the government’s
recognition of the need for incremental progress.
In
conclusion, the One Nation, One Election initiative represents a bold vision
for reforming India’s electoral landscape. By seeking to synchronize elections
at various levels of governance, the proposal aims to reduce costs, streamline
administration, and enhance governance continuity. However, its successful
implementation hinges on navigating a labyrinth of constitutional amendments,
logistical hurdles, and political consensus-building. While the government’s
commitment to the reform signals its determination to transform India’s
electoral framework, the debate surrounding One Nation, One Election
underscores the delicate balance between efficiency and inclusivity in a
diverse and dynamic democracy. The coming months will reveal whether this
ambitious initiative can surmount its challenges and redefine the future of
Indian elections.
(Views
are personal. Email: dipakkurmiglpltd@gmail.com)
