India, the world’s largest democracy, has long prided itself on its robust electoral system. However, as the nation evolves and faces new challenges, there is an ongoing debate about potential reforms to streamline and improve the electoral process. One such proposed reform that has gained significant attention in recent years is the concept of “One Nation, One Election” (ONOE). This idea, which advocates for simultaneous elections at both the national and state levels, has been put forward as a potential solution to several issues plaguing the current system. It is an unreasonable truth that the Indian political scenario is perennially in an election mode. The Lok Sabha election is an exception now but as usual the country witnesses an average of 3 to 4 elections per year. In this context if we add the elections of the third tier of government (Panchayati Raj institutions, Municipal bodies in rural and urban areas) and bye-elections then the number of elections in a year increases rapidly at a broad scale. Such frequent electoral cycles end up negatively impacting the administration and projects related with development in the poll bound states/ regions and the larger governance process in general as well. There is a severe need to evolve a mechanism to end this frequent election cycle. This view has been expressed by various stakeholders and scholars since quite some time now. The idea of undertaking simultaneous elections is being seriously considered as a potential solution to the above problem. Several prominent political leaders have also systematically and consistently voiced their support for the above idea at various fronts and forums. Before we delve into the proposed reform, it’s crucial to understand the current electoral system in India. At present, elections in India are held at different times for the Lok Sabha (lower house of Parliament) and various State Assemblies. The Lok Sabha elections occur every five years unless the government falls before its term ends. State Assembly elections follow a similar five-year cycle, but their timings vary across states. This staggered election schedule means that India is almost always in “election mode,” with some part of the country preparing for or conducting elections at any given time. While this ensures a constant democratic process, it also leads to several challenges that we will explore in detail.
It is interesting to know the fact that the concept of simultaneous election is now new to our country after the adoption of the constitution. The elections of Lok Sabha and all State Legislative Assemblies were held simultaneously from the year 1951 to 1967, the year when the cycle of synchronized elections got disrupted. Here it is noteworthy that the first general elections to Lok Sabha and all State Legislative Assemblies were held together in 1951-52. This process continued till three subsequent general elections held in the years- 1957, 1962 and 1967. However, due to the untimely adjournment of some Legislative Assemblies in 1968 and 1969, the cycle got disrupted for the first time. In 1970, Fourth Lok Sabha was itself dissolved prematurely and fresh elections were held in 1971. Thus, here we can witness that the First, Second and Third Lok Sabha enjoyed full five-year terms.
The Representation of People Act 1951 covers various modalities of conducting elections in the country. It provides the statutory basis for the Election Commission of India to conduct elections in the country. It prescribes the qualifications for being elected as a Member of Parliament or the Member of State Legislatures, general procedure to conduct elections, method of counting of votes, publication of results, resolution of disputes arising of elections, etc. Section 14 of this Act provides the notification for General Elections to the Lok Sabha. The proviso to the Section 14(2) states: “..Provided that where a general election is held otherwise than on the dissolution of the existing House of the People, no such notification shall be issued at any time earlier than six months anterior to the date on which the continuance of the House would expire under the provisions of clause (2) of Article 83. Section 15 (2) of the Act provides a similar provision for State legislatures. This means that the Election Commission of India is empowered to notify elections for both the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies six months prior to the end of normal terms of these Houses. This would not alter their term in any way.
The Law Commission of India chaired by Hon’ble Justice B. P. Jeevan Reddy in its 170th report on Reform of Electoral Laws (1999) has clearly stated “…This cycle of elections every year, and in the out of season, should be put an end to. We must go back to the situation where the elections to Lok Sabha and all the Legislative Assemblies are held at once. It is true that we cannot conceive or provide for all the situations and eventualities that may arise whether on account of the use of Article 356 (which of course has come down substantially after the decision of the Supreme Court in S.R. Bommai vs. Union of India) or for other reasons, yet the holding of a separate election to a Legislative Assembly should be an exception and not the rule. The rule ought to be one election once in five years for Lok Sabha and all the Legislative Assemblies”.
Law Commission Report
The Law Commission of India in its report of 1999 has dealt with the problem of premature and frequent elections. It had recommended an amendment of this rule on the lines of the German Constitution, which provides that the leader of the party who wants to replace the chancellor hasto move the no-confidence motion along with the confidence motion. If the motions succeed, the president appoints him as the chancellor. If such an amendment to Rule 198 is made, the Lok Sabha would avoid premature dissolution without diluting the cardinal principle of democracy that is a government with the consent of the peoples’ representatives with periodical elections. It will also be consistent with the notion of collective responsibility of the government to the House as mentioned in Article 75 (3) of the Constitution. This will bring stability and transparency in the system.
Election Commission and Niti Aayog views about Simultaneous Elections:
Favouring simultaneous elections to the Lok Sabha and the state assemblies, the Election Commission clearly stated that all political parties need to be brought on board before such an exercise is carried out. “The Election Commission has always been of the view that simultaneous elections will give enough time for incumbent governments to articulate policies and implement programmes continuously for a longer time without interruptions caused by imposition of model code of conduct,”. According to the Election Commission, conducting the polls together would be possible only when necessary changes in the Constitution and Representation of the People Act are carried out. Existing legal and constitutional provisions mandates that elections are to be held within six months ahead of the end of the term of a state assembly or the Lok Sabha after the constitutional and legal framework are in place, it would be feasible to seek all the logistical support and conduct simultaneous elections.
The Chief Election Commissioner recently said it would be logistically possible to hold the elections together if sufficient time is given to the Commission. There will be a requirement of 24 lakh each electronic voting machines (EVMs) and voter verifiable paper audit trail (VVPAT) Machines and the Commission had these requirements fulfilled. The Chief Election Commissioner assertion assumes significance as we see that Prime Minister Narendra Modi has already pitched for simultaneous Lok Sabha and assembly polls. Niti Aayog has also favoured conducting synchronised two-phase Lok Sabha and assembly elections from 2024 in national interest. All elections in India should happen in a free, fair and synchronised manner to ensure minimum “campaign mode” disruption to governance, the Niti Aayog had said in its “Three Year Action Agenda, 2017-18 to 2019-20” report,
Potential Benefits of “One Nation, One Election”
Implementing ONOE could bring about several significant benefits to India’s electoral system and governance. Let’s examine these potential advantages in detail:
Cost Reduction
One of the most cited benefits of ONOE is the potential for substantial cost savings. Elections in India are expensive affairs, involving massive logistical operations, security arrangements, and human resources. The Election Commission of India (ECI) spent approximately ₹55,000 crores (over $7 billion) on the 2019 Lok Sabha elections alone. This figure doesn’t include the expenses incurred by political parties and candidates.
By holding simultaneous elections, many of these costs could be significantly reduced. The same electoral machinery, security forces, and administrative setup could be used for both national and state elections, leading to economies of scale. This could potentially save billions of rupees that could be redirected towards development and welfare programs.
Reduced Disruption to Governance
The current system of frequent elections leads to the imposition of the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) multiple times over five years. The MCC, while essential for ensuring free and fair elections, puts certain restrictions on the functioning of the government. It prohibits the announcement of new schemes, projects, or policies that could influence voters. With elections happening almost continuously in some part of the country or another, governance often takes a backseat to electioneering. ONOE could potentially limit this disruption to a single, well-defined period every five years, allowing for more focused and continuous governance in between.
Increased Voter Turnout
Voter fatigue is a real concern in a country that sees frequent elections. Citizens may become less enthusiastic about participating in the democratic process if they are called to vote too often. By consolidating elections, ONOE could potentially increase voter turnout. Citizens might be more likely to participate if they know they only need to vote once every five years for both state and national representatives.
Reduced Influence of Black Money and Corruption
Frequent elections provide more opportunities for the use of black money and corrupt practices in campaigning. With elections happening less frequently under ONOE, there might be reduced scope for such activities. Moreover, regulatory bodies like the ECI could focus their monitoring efforts more effectively during a single, consolidated election period.
Improved Policy Continuity
The current system often leads to a lack of policy continuity, especially when state and central governments are formed by different parties. With simultaneous elections, there’s a higher likelihood of aligned governments at the state and center, potentially leading to better coordination and implementation of policies.
Enhanced Focus on Long-term Planning
When governments are not constantly in election mode, they can focus more on long-term planning and development. ONOE could provide a stable five-year window for governments to implement their policies and programs without the disruptions caused by frequent elections.
Implementing “One Nation, One Election”: Potential Roadmap
If India decides to move forward with the ONOE proposal, a carefully planned implementation strategy would be crucial. Here’s a potential roadmap for how this reform could be introduced:
1. Building Political Consensus
The first and perhaps most crucial step would be to build a broad political consensus. This would involve extensive consultations with all political parties, both national and regional. The government would need to address the concerns of various stakeholders and potentially make compromises to gain widespread support.
2. Constitutional Amendments
Once a consensus is reached, the necessary constitutional amendments would need to be drafted. These amendments would likely include:
(a) Changes to Article 83 (duration of Houses of Parliament) and Article 172 (duration of State Legislatures) to ensure fixed terms.
(b) Provisions for handling situations where governments fall before completing their terms.
(c) Amendments to the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
These amendments would need to be passed by both houses of Parliament with a two-thirds majority and ratified by at least half of the state legislatures.
3. Transition Plan
A detailed transition plan would be necessary to move from the current system to ONOE. This might involve:
(a) Extending or curtailing the terms of some state assemblies to align with the Lok Sabha election schedule.
(b) Provisions for interim governments or President’s rule in states where assemblies complete their terms before the next synchronized election.
4. Electoral Commission Preparations
The Election Commission of India would need to undertake massive preparations, including:
(a) Procuring additional EVMs and VVPATs.
(b) Training a larger number of polling staff.
(c) Developing new protocols for simultaneous elections.
(d) Creating voter awareness campaigns about the new system.
5. Security Arrangements
Given the scale of simultaneous nationwide elections, comprehensive security arrangements would be necessary. This would involve coordination between various security agencies and potentially require additional recruitment and training of security personnel.
6. Pilot Implementation
Before full-scale implementation, it might be prudent to conduct a pilot in a few states. This could help identify potential issues and refine the process before national rollout.
7. Phased Implementation
A phased implementation approach could be considered, where elections are synchronized in stages over multiple election cycles. This could help manage the logistical challenges and allow for adjustments based on lessons learned.
8. Post-Implementation Review
After the first simultaneous elections, a comprehensive review should be conducted to assess the impact and identify areas for improvement.
Impact on Indian Democracy and Governance
The introduction of ONOE would have far-reaching implications for Indian democracy and governance. Let’s examine some of these potential impacts:
1. Strengthened Federalism or Centralization?
While proponents argue that ONOE could strengthen federalism by allowing state governments to focus on governance rather than constant electioneering, critics worry about potential centralization. The outcome would largely depend on how the reform is implemented and how political parties adapt their strategies.
2. Changes in Political Campaigning
Simultaneous elections would likely lead to significant changes in how political parties campaign. Parties would need to develop more comprehensive, nationwide strategies rather than focusing on state-by-state campaigns. This could lead to more policy-focused campaigns rather than personality-driven ones.
3. Media Coverage and Public Discourse
With all elections happening simultaneously, media coverage and public discourse would likely become more intense but concentrated in a shorter period. This could lead to more in-depth coverage of issues but might also risk information overload for voters.
4. Governance and Policy Implementation
ONOE could potentially lead to more stable governments and policy continuity. With a clear five-year mandate, governments might be more willing to take on long-term projects and reforms. However, this stability needs to be balanced with maintaining accountability.
5. Voter Behaviour and Decision-making
Simultaneous elections might change how voters make their decisions. They would need to consider both national and state issues simultaneously, which could lead to more informed voting. However, there’s also a risk of national issues overshadowing state-specific concerns.
6. Impact on Smaller Parties and Independents
ONOE could pose challenges for smaller parties and independent candidates who might struggle to compete in a more nationalized electoral landscape. Measures to ensure fair representation for these groups would be crucial.
7. Election Monitoring and Management
While simultaneous elections would be a massive logistical challenge, they could also provide opportunities for more effective election monitoring. With resources concentrated on a single election period, the Election Commission and other watchdogs might be able to ensure more rigorous oversight.
Functional feasibility:
According to this argument larger challenges which should be adequately addressed within the constitutional and statutory boundaries are following:-
● How will the State Assemblies and Lok Sabha be synchronized for the first time?
● Would it be feasible to extend or curtail the existing terms of some State Assemblies to facilitate the above? If elections are held simultaneously, what would happen in case the ruling party or coalition loses majority in between term, either in Lok Sabha or in State assemblies?
● Should the term of Lok Sabha and assemblies be fixed?
● Is it practically feasible for the Election Commission of India to conduct elections at such a monolithic scale – considering logistics, security and manpower resource requirements?
Concluding observation
The “One Nation, One Election” proposal represents a significant potential reform to India’s electoral system. While it offers several compelling benefits, including cost savings, reduced disruption to governance, and the potential for more focused long-term planning, it also faces substantial challenges in terms of implementation and potential impacts on India’s federal structure. The success of such a reform would depend on careful planning, broad political consensus, and measures to address the concerns of various stakeholders. It would require not just legislative changes, but a shift in political culture and voter behavior. As India continues to evolve as a democracy, it’s crucial to have these discussions about electoral reforms. Whether ONOE is ultimately implemented or not, the debate itself is valuable in identifying areas for improvement in the current system.
The fears that holding simultaneous elections would affect the federal nature of the Indian polity appears to be completely groundless. As a matter of fact, it would help in better coordination between the governments at the Centre and in various States, rather than moving the country towards becoming a unitary state. Post independence, did the holding of simultaneous elections between 1952 and 1967 in any way stimulate the country as a unitary state at that time? India’s vibrant parliamentary democracy, based on strong constitutional principles, is mature enough not to slip into a unitary model just because of simultaneous elections. The country will achieve progress and remain strong only when the Centre and States act as equal partners, regardless of the political differences of those governing at the national and regional levels.
The path forward will require balancing the potential benefits of reform with the need to preserve the core principles of India’s democracy – federalism, representation, and accountability. Whatever the outcome, the goal should be to strengthen India’s democratic processes and ensure that they continue to serve the diverse needs of its billion-plus citizens. As this analysis shows, the introduction of a “One Nation, One Election” bill would indeed bring significant reform to India’s electoral system. However, like any major reform, its success would depend on thoughtful implementation and the ability to adapt to unforeseen challenges. As India contemplates this potential change, it will be crucial to maintain an open, inclusive dialogue that considers all perspectives and prioritizes the long-term health of India’s democracy.
Comments