One Nation, One Election: A Bold Vision Amidst Challenges

DIPAK KURMI

The concept of One Nation, One Election has reemerged as a focal point of India’s political discourse, marking a bold yet contentious step toward restructuring the nation’s electoral processes. On December 12, 2024, the Union Cabinet, under the leadership of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, approved draft legislation aimed at implementing simultaneous elections for the Lok Sabha, state legislative assemblies, and local bodies within 100 days. This historic move seeks to address the challenges posed by the current fragmented electoral schedule, reduce administrative and economic burdens, and enhance the efficiency of governance. However, the initiative is not without its complexities and detractors, with constitutional, logistical, and political hurdles threatening its smooth implementation.

At its core, the One Nation, One Election initiative aims to streamline the electoral schedules of various tiers of governance—national, state, and local—into a unified timeline. This reform seeks to replace the staggered and frequent election cycles with synchronized elections, thereby reducing costs, minimizing administrative disruptions, and mitigating the extended enforcement of the Model Code of Conduct, which often delays developmental activities. The draft legislation incorporates 11 key recommendations from a high-level committee led by former President Ram Nath Kovind. Among its suggestions is a phased approach, with the first phase synchronizing Lok Sabha and state assembly elections, followed by municipal and panchayat polls within a 100-day window.

A significant aspect of the proposed reforms is the introduction of new constitutional amendments. Articles 324A and 325 are among the proposed provisions aimed at enabling simultaneous elections and creating unified voter rolls for a streamlined electoral process. Furthermore, substantial amendments to existing articles, including Articles 83, 85, 172, 174, and 356, will be necessary to align the tenures of different legislative bodies. These amendments, requiring ratification by a majority of state legislatures, represent a monumental undertaking, necessitating both political consensus and legal precision. In addition, a second bill seeks to align the terms of legislative assemblies in union territories—such as Delhi, Puducherry, and Jammu and Kashmir—with the Lok Sabha and state assemblies, through amendments to existing laws. Notably, this bill would not require constitutional ratification, making it comparatively easier to implement.

While the government envisions this reform as a means to strengthen governance and economic efficiency, critics argue that it oversimplifies India’s complex federal structure. Synchronizing elections requires addressing the challenge of mid-term dissolutions of legislative bodies. If a Lok Sabha or state assembly is dissolved prematurely due to a hung house or a no-confidence motion, fresh elections would be held only for the unexpired term of the dissolved body, creating potential governance gaps. Additionally, critics argue that holding national and state elections simultaneously could dilute local issues and overshadow regional representation due to the dominance of national narratives. Opposition parties like the Indian National Congress have expressed reservations, accusing the government of attempting to centralize power and divert attention from broader electoral integrity concerns. Meanwhile, other political entities, such as Telangana’s Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS), have adopted a cautious stance, seeking greater clarity before endorsing or opposing the initiative.

The economic rationale behind One Nation, One Election is a central pillar of its advocacy. Frequent elections in India incur significant financial and administrative costs, ranging from security and logistics to the deployment of electoral machinery and personnel. Consolidating these expenses into a single synchronized electoral cycle could alleviate much of this burden, allowing resources to be redirected toward developmental priorities. Additionally, reducing the prolonged enforcement of the Model Code of Conduct—which prohibits policy announcements and major projects during election periods—could enhance governance continuity and accelerate developmental initiatives.

Despite its purported advantages, the logistical challenges of implementing simultaneous elections cannot be overstated. The Election Commission of India (ECI) would need to mobilize extensive resources, including additional electronic voting machines (EVMs) and voter verifiable paper audit trails (VVPATs), alongside recruiting and training vast numbers of polling staff. Establishing the necessary infrastructure and ensuring nationwide readiness within the proposed 100-day timeframe is an immense undertaking. Moreover, the synchronization of subsequent elections following the reform’s implementation requires precise mechanisms to avoid disruptions caused by political uncertainties.

The political dimension of the reform is equally complex. Achieving the required constitutional amendments and building consensus among political parties—many of which hold divergent regional and ideological interests—poses a formidable challenge. Critics warn that simultaneous elections could disproportionately benefit larger national parties, such as the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), while marginalizing regional parties that rely on local issues to secure electoral mandates. Furthermore, opposition leaders argue that the initiative risks undermining the federal structure of India’s democracy by imposing a homogenized electoral framework that may not account for regional variations and priorities.

Historically, the idea of simultaneous elections is not new. Between 1951 and 1967, India conducted elections to the Lok Sabha and state assemblies concurrently. However, the dissolution of some state assemblies and the Lok Sabha in the years that followed disrupted this alignment, leading to the staggered electoral cycles seen today. Over the decades, several committees and reports, beginning with the Election Commission’s recommendations in 1983, have revisited the idea of One Nation, One Election, emphasizing its potential to enhance governance efficiency and reduce costs. Despite these arguments, the reform has consistently encountered resistance due to its inherent complexities.

The Union Cabinet’s recent approval of the draft legislation marks a significant step forward for the One Nation, One Election initiative, yet it remains to be seen whether the government can navigate the numerous constitutional and logistical challenges that lie ahead. The proposal to exclude local body elections from the initial implementation phase indicates a pragmatic approach, focusing on synchronizing Lok Sabha and state assembly elections first before expanding to municipal and panchayat polls. However, this phased approach also underscores the scale of the undertaking, reflecting the government’s recognition of the need for incremental progress.

In conclusion, the One Nation, One Election initiative represents a bold vision for reforming India’s electoral landscape. By seeking to synchronize elections at various levels of governance, the proposal aims to reduce costs, streamline administration, and enhance governance continuity. However, its successful implementation hinges on navigating a labyrinth of constitutional amendments, logistical hurdles, and political consensus-building. While the government’s commitment to the reform signals its determination to transform India’s electoral framework, the debate surrounding One Nation, One Election underscores the delicate balance between efficiency and inclusivity in a diverse and dynamic democracy. The coming months will reveal whether this ambitious initiative can surmount its challenges and redefine the future of Indian elections.

(Views are personal. Email: dipakkurmiglpltd@gmail.com)