Elections are the lifeblood of a democracy, and the manner in which they are conducted serves as a profound reflection of a nation’s democratic values. The recent formation of a Union Government panel to examine the feasibility of ‘One Nation – One Election’ has once again sparked a nationwide discourse in India. Although not entirely new, India had previously held both central and state elections simultaneously from 1951 to 1967. However, due to premature state assembly dissolutions, this practice lapsed and was gradually forgotten.
Presently, the Modi Government’s renewed support for ‘One Nation – One Election’ seeks to revive the historic electoral system. This report explores its historical context, potential benefits, challenges and impacts and highlights the need for a thoughtful and constructive debate on this major electoral reform.
A deeply diverse nation comprising 28 states and eight union territories, India remains constantly immersed in election campaigns. Every election, including those in union territories like Puducherry, is often seen as a verdict on the Government of India. This perpetual election cycle can prevent the government from addressing long-term challenges and development goals. The ‘One Nation – One Election’ initiative seeks to address this problem by harmonising elections at the national and state levels, limiting the frequency of referendums and allowing central and state governments to focus on sustainable governance initiatives.
Pros of ‘One Nation-One Election’
- Cost savings: One of the most significant benefits of this system is the significant cost savings. Conducting elections is a costly affair, and synchronising them would result in significant savings. The 2019 general election cost India approximately 60,000 crores rupees. These funds could be redirected to essential development projects and initiatives.
- Efficient use of resources: The system would ensure proper deployment of security forces during elections and reduce the burden on these vital resources. It would also allow for better disaster management planning as election-related disruptions would be minimised. For example, in 2019, India alone experienced seven elections in a year, which put a strain on officials.
- Long-term governance: With synchronised elections, governments would have longer terms of office, allowing for better planning and implementation of long-term projects. Frequent elections often lead to a focus on short-term populist measures to secure votes.
- Productivity and stability: Government employees would benefit from fewer election holidays, leading to increased productivity. Moreover, a stable government resulting from simultaneous elections would instil investor confidence and promote economic stability.
- Better Administration: Senior Government officers would have more time to formulate policy and implement projects, leading to more efficient administration. Continuity of leadership would reduce political upheavals associated with elections driven by leadership changes.
- Increased voter engagement: A single-election event would make it easier for citizens to exercise their right to vote, which could increase voter turnout and political participation.
- Reduction of electoral malpractices: Simultaneous elections could help reduce the number of fraudulent voters and electoral malpractices as there would be a more efficient & strengthened process.
Cons of ‘One Nation – One Election’
- Anti-Incumbency: ‘One Nation – One Election’ can lead to a high anti-incumbency factor, especially when both the central and state governments are from the same party or alliance. Voters may be inclined to vote against the incumbent in either election, which could lead to significant policy changes.
- Hung Parliament/ Legislature: India’s parliamentary setup often results in hung parliaments or legislatures where no party can form a government. In such cases, frequent elections may be necessary, disrupting the ‘One Nation – One Election’ cycle.
- Complexity of Transition: Transitioning to ‘One Nation – One Election’ would be a complex process involving legal, logistical and administrative issues. Constitutional amendments may be needed, and state governments may be reluctant to give up their power to set election schedules.
- Political opposition: The opposition parties have not shown a unanimous willingness to discuss and implement this reform. Their concerns and reservations need to be addressed through constructive dialogue.
Challenges Ahead
The concept of ‘One Nation – One Election’ in a diverse nation like India is both promising and challenging. It offers a myriad of benefits, including cost savings, better governance and greater voter engagement. However, challenges such as transition complexity and political opposition need to be carefully considered. As India grapples with a perpetual electoral cycle, it is essential to engage in a rational and open debate on this electoral reform.
The Modi Government should not only support this initiative but also engage in constructive discussions with the opposition parties and related stakeholders. In addition, the government should take this message to the grassroots level, explaining the benefits and addressing the concerns of every citizen. This participatory approach can help bridge the gap and pave the way for meaningful electoral reforms.
Ultimately, the question remains: Can India, with its vast diversity and complex political landscape, successfully implement ‘One Nation – One Election’? While it represents a promising solution to many of the challenges associated with frequent elections, the road to achieving it will undoubtedly be fraught with obstacles. Nevertheless, it is a conversation worth having for the sake of the nation’s progress and democratic vitality.
Comments