One Nation One Election: Analyzing the applicability of the concept in India

Introduction

Recently, news surfaced that the Indian Parliament is planning to introduce the One Nation One Election bill in the winter session of the Parliament which has made the subject of intense debate in Indian political discourse. This proposal advocates for synchronizing elections to the Lok Sabha (House of the People) and all State Legislative Assemblies, conducting them simultaneously across the country. The underlying objective is to streamline the election procedure, reduce costs, minimize governance disruptions, and create a more stable political environment.

However, while the idea has its merits, it also presents significant challenges in terms of its feasibility and impact on India’s federal structure. This analysis will explore the origin of this concept, its potential applicability in India, the associated benefits, and the challenges it might face.

Origin of the Concept

The concept of holding simultaneous elections in India is not new. In fact, from 1952 to 1967, India conducted simultaneous elections for the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies. This system functioned efficiently until political developments in the late 1960s and early 1970s disrupted the election cycle and the practice of simultaneous elections was discontinued. The premature dissolution of several state assemblies, political instability, and dissolution of the fourth Lok Sabha in 1971 all contributed to the downfall of the concept and caused the electoral cycles of the central and state governments to diverge.

Since then, elections in India have been stunned across different states and at the national level. As a result, India has entered a near-perpetual election cycle, with one or more states going to the polls every year, alongside the national general elections held every five years. This has led to the current discussions about reverting to the simultaneous election model.

The idea of “One Nation, One Election” has gained renewed interest in the last ten years. There have been several official committees that considered the issue and made suggestions:

1. Reports from Law Commission: The Law Commission of India has approached this subject of simultaneous elections in more than one report. In its 170th Report of the year 1999 and the 255th Report of the year 2015, the Commission suggested simultaneous elections with a cost-cutting effect and towards better governance[1].
2. Election Commission of India (ECI): The ECI has advocated for holding simultaneous elections and maintains that this will bring numerous advantages, one of which is the savings in election expense as well as logistical advantage.
3. NITI Aayog Discussion Paper 2017: The Government’s Policy Think Tank, NITI Aayog, had also proposed simultaneous elections and such a system can improve the effectiveness of governance, decrease the frequency of the MCC application, and minimize election fatigue.

Although there are historical precedents as well as official encouragements, this new idea in modern India will face quite several strong constitutional, political, as well as logistical barriers.

Constitutional and legal hurdles

The Indian Constitution will have to be amended to allow simultaneous elections. Though the Constitution does provide for fixed terms for both the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies it contains provisions under which early dissolution takes place when the sitting majority or for any other reason is lost.

Some of the key constitutional provisions that would therefore require an amendment include:

1. Article 83: The Lok Sabha shall continue for five years from the date appointed for its first sitting, or until it is sooner dissolved, subject to earlier dissolution by the President. This article would need to be amended to accommodate the synchronization of terms with the State Legislative Assemblies.
2. Article 172: This article states that in each State Legislative Assembly, there shall be five years from its first sitting unless sooner dissolved, except in this sub-section. amendment is required to harmonize State elections with the overall national calendar.
3. Articles 85 and 174: These articles deal with the prorogation and dissolution of the Lok Sabha and the State Assemblies respectively. The synchronization process will require flexibility in terms of early or delayed elections.
4. Article 356: The President’s rule would also have implications when a state government fails to function under constitutional provisions, and is invoked under this article. In such a situation, the election schedule may be disrupted and require further constitutional safeguards when the state is put under the President’s rule.

If such amendments are required, two-thirds of the present and voting members in both Houses of Parliament shall recommend ratification by at least half of the state legislatures. Hence, it is a huge political challenge to bring about such a broad consensus because of the diversity in interest among political parties in India.

Political Feasibility

Political consensus decides the fate of the “One Nation, One Election” idea. The Indian political structure is studded with powerful regional parties whose electoral agenda differs from that of national parties. The opponents of simultaneous elections fear that national concerns will triumph over the issues specific to the states and, thus, weaken the prospects of regional parties in elections.

1. National vs. State Issues: One of the main objections to the proposal is that concurrent elections may diffuse focus on state-specific issues. The focus of the voter may be more on national issues during concurrent voting, presumably pushing regional or state-specific issues into the background. Regional parties argue that this might result in a scenario where electoral debate is hijacked by national parties, especially the ruling party at the center, while regional voices are silenced.
2. Denial of Autonomy: Perhaps states might feel resentful that the voting cycle of their states would fall within a national cycle. This would be treated as a denial of the autonomy of states, which is a very sensitive feature of the federal setup of India.
3. Political Will and Opposition: The central ruling party, BJP, had been a strong votary for simultaneous elections. However, the opposition parties, including Congress, Trinamool Congress, and many others are skeptical or even in outright opposition to the idea. They believe that simultaneous elections might tilt the balance of the political playing field for the advantage of the national ruling party and may influence the state elections in its favor.

Logistical and Administrative Challenges

1. Gargantuan Size Elections: India is the largest democracy in the world with over 900 million electors and more than 10 lakh polling stations. It would be a humongous exercise if elections to both Lok Sabha and all State Legislative Assemblies were held simultaneously since the totality of the administrative and security measures would be a gigantic affair. The Election Commission would have to deploy its personnel and resources all over the country to conduct free and fair elections.
2. Cost Implications: This is one of the strongest arguments in favor of simultaneous elections; it seems cost-effective. However, this scale of logistical challenge may well somewhat negate the cost savings. The Election Commission would now have to procure more EVMs and VVPAT machines to cope with simultaneous elections.
3. Safety Concerns: Since safety is an indispensable constituent of any electoral process, it becomes a serious issue, especially in sensitive areas where violence or insurgency exists. The simultaneous elections to be held all over the country will put some serious pressure on the security forces and require scaled coordination.
4. Handling Political Crises: One of the major problems is what happens when a government, either at the Centre or in a State, loses its majority midterm and requires conducting fresh elections. In order to maintain synchronization, either the affected government must be placed under President’s rule or a mid-term election has to be conducted, which leads to breaking the process of synchronization.

Advantages of Simultaneous Elections

Despite all the difficulties, the concept of simultaneous elections holds several potential advantages:

1. Election Expenditure: Perhaps the strongest argument in support of simultaneous elections lies in potential savings. Staggered elections necessitate repeated deployment of election officials, security forces, and administrative resources. Elections may be simultaneously held to cut down on these costs to a large extent.
2. Minimization of Governance: Disruption So far, the Model Code of Conduct has disturbed governance every time elections come around. The Model Code of Conduct bans an election-bound government from announcing new schemes or new policies. A simultaneous election would only cause a minimum disruption to such frequent interruption so that governments can focus on the long-term implementation of its policies.
3. More Governance: Because fewer elections would happen, governments could focus more on governance than remain always in a mode of election. Concomitant elections could provide a stable political context wherein the central and state governments could focus more on policy implementation rather than constant electoral distractions.
4. Voter Fatigue: As discussed, repeated elections can cause voter fatigue as voters become tired of the constant election processes. Simultaneous elections may enhance voter turnout by compressing the voting into a single event.

Criticism of the Idea

1. Toppling current terms: Simultaneous elections would require either shortening or lengthening the existing legislatures’ terms. This can cause political instability or constitutional controversies. For instance, if the term of a state assembly falls one year prior to the national election, that state assembly’s term would have to be stretched or an interim election held.
2. Federalism and State Autonomy: India’s federalism system gives a great deal of independence to states concerning governance and elections. Simultaneous elections can be considered to be restricting this autonomy, mainly because it will tend to synchronize state elections with the date of national elections.
3. Impact on Regional Parties: This is already discussed above, but simultaneous elections will certainly reduce the impact of regional parties to favor national parties which may culminate in weakening federalism due to the reduced importance of state-specific issues.

Conclusion

Promising cost savings, governmental stability, and reduced electoral fatigue, the “One Nation, One Election” concept spells out a radical vision for India’s electoral process. Its implementation is riddled with challenges – constitutional amendments, logistical issues, and political opposition. Hence, building broad political consensus will be highly crucial and, accordingly, taming down the respective apprehensions against its outcome about India’s federal structure and states’ autonomy. This idea has promise, but in terms of viability and prospects for the long term for India’s democratic system, it requires much scrutiny and discussion.

[1] https://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/cat_electoral_reforms/ accessed on October 5,2024