What do you think? Should India implement "One Nation, One Election"? India is known as the largest democracy in the world, where states and the central government work together while having their own independence. The concept of "One Nation, One Election" (ONOE) suggests holding elections for the Lok Sabha (Parliament) and state assemblies at the same time. This idea could make elections more efficient, save money, and improve governance. However, some people worry that it might give too much power to the central government and reduce the importance of state governments.

What is “One Nation, One Election”?

India’s democratic system involves elections at multiple levels—general elections for the Lok Sabha, state assembly elections, and local body polls. These elections happen at different times, so there are elections happening often. The ONOE proposal suggests holding all these elections at the same time every five years to make the process more organised and efficient.

The idea of holding elections together isn’t new. When India started its democracy in 1952, elections for Parliament and state assemblies were held at the same time, and this continued until 1967. But when some state governments were dissolved early, it broke the cycle, leading to separate elections being held at different times. Now, after many years, Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government is suggesting bringing back synchronised elections.

How is it beneficial, or should it be implemented?

Supporters of ONOE believe it can make governance more efficient by reducing how often elections are held. Right now, whenever an election takes place, the Election Commission puts in place a rule called the Model Code of Conduct (MCC). This rule stops governments from making new policies that might affect voters. Because of the MCC, important welfare programs or reforms can be delayed. But if elections happen at the same time, this disruption would only happen once every five years, making it easier to create and implement policies without interruptions.

Elections in India are very expensive. Political parties, candidates, and the government spend a lot of money on campaigns, ads, poll booths, and security. If elections were held together, a lot of this money could be saved. This saving could help improve India's economy, potentially increasing its GDP by up to 1.5%, according to economists and former President Ram Nath Kovind.

Concerns of centralisation

Critics believe that holding elections at the same time for both national and state governments could harm India's federal system. Local issues might be ignored in favour of larger national topics. For example, during the 2019 Lok Sabha and Odisha Assembly elections, many discussions focused on national matters like the Balakot airstrike. Because of this, important state issues, such as problems in farming and unemployment in tribal areas, didn’t get much attention during the campaigns. In 2021, elections took place in West Bengal, Assam, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, and Puducherry during March and April.

In 2022, elections were held in Uttar Pradesh, Manipur, Goa, Uttarakhand, and Punjab in February and March. Later, Gujarat and Himachal Pradesh held elections in November and December. In 2023, elections were held three times. In February, elections took place in Tripura, Meghalaya, and Nagaland. In May, Karnataka held elections. Then, in November, Rajasthan, Telangana, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, and Mizoram also held elections.

In 2024, elections were held in April-May in Odisha, Andhra Pradesh, Sikkim, and Arunachal Pradesh, along with the Lok Sabha elections. In October, Haryana and Jammu and Kashmir had elections. Finally, Maharashtra and Jharkhand held elections in November.

The possibility of states losing their unique voice is a major concern. India is very diverse, and each state has its own needs and problems. If elections happen at the same time for both national and state governments, state election campaigns might get less attention. This could make regional parties and local issues less important, giving national parties an advantage over smaller, regional ones.

Challenges in implementation

Implementing ONOE would require changes to the Constitution. For example, Articles 83 and 172, which decide how long Parliament and state assemblies serve, would need to be updated. New rules, like Article 82A, might also need to be added to allow elections to happen at the same time.

Another challenge is what happens if a state government falls before its term ends. Would all state assemblies be dissolved, or would the state have to wait until the next round of simultaneous elections? Both options create problems with organising elections and ensuring fairness.

A common concern raised by critics is that voters might be influenced by both national and state campaigns happening at the same time. When elections are held together, state voting might follow national trends. Voters may focus more on national issues like security or leadership than local matters. This could weaken the independence of states and make state governments too dependent on decisions made by the central government.

Some other countries already implement the ONOE process

Countries like Indonesia, Sweden, and South Africa hold elections together in different ways, and India could learn from them. In Indonesia, voters choose their president, vice president, and lawmakers on the same day, though local elections are separate. In Sweden, elections for the Parliament and local councils are held at the same time. South Africa also holds national and provincial elections together, but local elections are separate. While India’s elections are more complex, looking at how these countries manage their elections could help India adapt the idea of holding elections at the same time.Bottom of Form

Debate in the Parliament for ONOE

Recently, two bills—the Constitution (129th Amendment) Bill and the Union Territories Amendment Bill—were introduced to support the ONOE idea. After a lot of debate in the Lok Sabha, the bills were passed with 269 votes in favour and 198 against. The government believes these changes will improve governance, but the opposition has called it "dictatorial" and an attack on India's federal system.

Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal has rejected these claims, saying that ONOE won’t go against the core principles of the Constitution. He argues that the proposed changes still respect the Constitution's power and the federal system, as well as the judicial review process.

Balancing the pros and cons

The ONOE proposal has clear advantages, such as improving efficiency, reducing costs, and making governance easier. But it also has challenges, like weakening federalism, ignoring local issues, and giving more power to the central government. To make ONOE work, big changes to the Constitution are needed, and political parties and state governments must agree. While fewer elections and less disruption sound good, it's important not to harm India's diversity or federal system.

The key challenge is balancing elections happening at the same time while allowing states to govern independently. For ONOE to succeed, a careful plan is needed that addresses these issues, ensures local concerns are represented, and follows democratic values. It will be important to involve political parties, civil groups, and the public to make sure the proposal benefits India's democracy.