The Union Cabinet’s approval of the contentious ‘One Nation, One Election’ proposal marks a significant turning point in India’s electoral and democratic processes. While proponents argue it will streamline governance and reduce costs, the implications for India’s federal structure and democratic diversity demand careful scrutiny.
The idea of simultaneous elections is not novel. The BJP, since its ascension in 2014, has consistently championed this cause. The rationale is rooted in practical considerations: reduced financial burden, fewer disruptions to governance due to the Model Code of Conduct (MCC), and increased voter convenience. Supporters also claim it will prevent electoral fatigue and ensure uninterrupted policy implementation, a compelling argument in a nation perpetually in election mode.
However, beneath these seemingly pragmatic benefits lies a potential erosion of India’s federal character. India’s Constitution envisages a decentralized structure where states and local bodies play pivotal roles in governance. Frequent elections, while resource-intensive, allow voters to hold governments accountable at various levels. Synchronizing elections risks homogenizing political discourse, overshadowing regional issues, and marginalizing smaller parties that often represent the interests of specific communities and regions. This could lead to a dilution of India’s democratic plurality, which thrives on the diversity of voices and issues.
Moreover, logistical hurdles abound. Elections are complex undertakings involving millions of personnel and resources. Aligning the electoral cycles of the Lok Sabha, state assemblies, and local bodies—each with distinct tenures and mandates—requires significant constitutional amendments and legislative overhauls. The Law Commission’s 2018 report outlined challenges, such as addressing scenarios of mid-term dissolutions or hung assemblies. While the high-level panel’s suggestions on interim arrangements attempt to address these concerns, they raise questions about democratic representation and governance continuity.
Critics, particularly opposition parties, argue that the proposal tilts the balance of power towards the Centre, undermining state autonomy. The Congress has termed the bill as “against democracy and the basic structure of the Constitution,” highlighting fears that simultaneous elections could favour national parties, especially those with deeper pockets and greater resources. This concern is not unfounded, given India’s electoral landscape, where regional parties often struggle against the might of their national counterparts.
While the vision of
simultaneous elections promises efficiency, its implementation must not come at
the cost of democratic ideals and federalism. The government must engage in
broader consultations with opposition parties, constitutional experts, and civil
society to address concerns and ensure that the proposal does not undermine the
essence of Indian democracy. Reform should enhance governance without eroding
the diversity and accountability that define India’s electoral system.
