India’s "One Nation, One Election" proposal is one of the most ambitious reforms in the country’s democratic process. It envisions synchronizing national and state elections so that all elections parliamentary, state assembly, and local body elections—are held simultaneously every five years. While the idea is not entirely new , its reintroduction has sparked intense debate about its potential impact on the country’s politics, governance, and federal structure.
The proposal of ONOE has been advocated by Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party. According to them the main reason for advocating ONOE is to reduce the cost of conducting multiple elections, to streamline governance and to avoid the perpetual "election mode". It is argued that simultaneous elections would result in better policy implementation as governments at both the state and central levels can concentrate on governance instead of being bogged down by the frequent election cycle.
The main advantage of ONOE is the substantial reduction in the cost of conducting elections. The country spends billions of rupees on frequent elections across different states at different times right now. One nation one election is expected to cut down expenses related to administrative costs, security deployment, and electoral logistics.
Frequent elections lead to governments constantly being in "campaign mode," which can detract from their ability to govern effectively. With synchronized elections, it is believed that governments would have a full five-year uninterrupted term to focus on policy implementation and governance. The continuous cycle of elections often results in populist policies being prioritized over long-term developmental plans.
In India every election triggers the implementation of the Election Commission's Model Code of Conduct (MCC).It restricts the government from making certain policy decisions during the election period. So this kind of policy disrupts ongoing projects and policies. Especially in sectors like infrastructure and social welfare. Simultaneous elections would mean that the MCC would apply once every five years, allowing for smoother governance between elections.
Supporters argue that holding all elections at the same time may boost voter turnout. It may reduce voter fatigue. Citizens would only need to go to the polls once, as opposed to multiple times in different state and local elections.
ONOE could potentially undermine democratic principles by centralizing electoral focus on national issues at the expense of regional concerns. In a simultaneous election, there is a risk that national narratives, driven by political parties with larger resources, will dominate, overshadowing the unique issues that state elections often focus on. This might dilute the democratic representation of diverse regional aspirations and identities.
The arrangement of organizing simultaneous elections across the vast expanse of India, with its varied geography, demography and infrastructure, pose a significant challenge. Given that different state assemblies dissolve at different times, implementing this proposal would require significant constitutional amendments. These amendments would need to address how to manage situations where a state government collapses prematurely or when a national government is dissolved early.
Regional parties, which often dominate state elections, could lose out in a simultaneous election. National parties like the BJP and Congress would likely have a disproportionate advantage. They have the resources and reach to campaign on a national scale. This may weaken regional parties as regional parties are vital to India’s political diversity and are often focused on local governance and regional identity issues.
One significant challenge with ONOE is synchronizing the different election cycles of state assemblies and the national parliament. Right now various state governments have different election schedules based on when their five-year terms end. To follow ONOE some state governments would either have to extend or shorten their terms, which would raise constitutional and political challenges. There is also the possibility of a mid-term dissolution, requiring by-elections that could disrupt the synchronized schedule.
Voters may struggle to differentiate between state and national issues during a simultaneous election. According to some studies in simultaneous elections there is a tendency for voters to vote for the same party at both the national and state levels . This could undermine the ability of voters to hold governments accountable at the state level, as local issues might get overshadowed by national narratives.
"One Nation, One Election" implementation would require multiple amendments to the Constitution. Article 83 and Article 172, which deal with the duration of the House of Parliament and the state legislatures, respectively, would need to be amended to ensure that all elections are synchronized.
The Election Commission of India would need to significantly ramp up its capacity. Because to conduct elections for over 900 million voters simultaneously would be a herculean task. This includes logistical arrangements for polling booths, voting machines, and security measures across the country.
Though ONOE presents an appealing case for reducing the costs and improving governance, its impact on India’s democracy is complex. The centralization of the electoral process may weaken the country's federal structure because regional issues could become secondary to national concerns. Smaller regional parties, which often play crucial roles in state-level politics, may find it difficult to compete with national parties in simultaneous elections.
There is also the risk that simultaneous elections could create political instability. If a government whether at the state or national level collapses prematurely, then fresh elections has to be held or the imposition of President's Rule in the state until the next election. Such scenarios could lead to democratic disruptions.
"One Nation, One Election" is a significant electoral reform that could reshape India's democratic and political landscape. Though it promises cost-efficiency, better governance, and improved voter turnout, it also raises concerns about federalism, the representation of regional parties, and logistical feasibility. The success of this reform would depend on addressing these concerns and ensuring that India's diverse political system remains robust and representative.
(Views are personal. Email: satyabratborah12@gmail.com)
