Ravindra Ojha
The Union Cabinet, has officially approved the ‘One Nation, One Election’ (ONOE) report, a transformative concept aiming to conduct simultaneous elections for both the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies across India. This proposal, which seeks to revolutionize the electoral process, promises significant cost savings, improved efficiency, and potentially increased voter turnout. However, its implementation is not without substantial constitutional and logistical hurdles.
- What Is ‘One Nation, One Election’?
The ONOE concept centers on the idea of synchronizing elections for the Lok Sabha and state assemblies throughout the country. Currently, elections are held independently, either at the end of a five-year term or following the dissolution of assemblies for various reasons. This independent scheduling often leads to overlapping campaigns, heightened costs, and a continuous political atmosphere that can be overwhelming for both voters and candidates.
- The Rationale Behind ONOE :
The rationale for ONOE is deeply rooted in the desire to enhance the efficiency of the electoral process in India, the world’s largest democracy. The Indian electoral landscape is marked by frequent elections at various levels, creating a scenario where political parties and candidates are often in campaign mode rather than focusing on governance. Proponents argue that synchronizing elections will not only reduce electoral fatigue among voters but also lead to better governance.
- Historical Context :
The concept of simultaneous elections is not novel. It traces its roots back to India’s first general elections in 1951-52, when Lok Sabha elections coincided with state assembly polls. This practice continued until 1967, disrupted by a series of hung assemblies and early dissolutions of the Lok Sabha and state assemblies. The subsequent years have witnessed a fragmented electoral calendar, with elections taking place at staggered intervals.
- Past Attempts and Recommendations :
Efforts to revive the idea of simultaneous elections have been made over the years. The Election Commission of India has consistently advocated for ONOE, articulating its stance in various discussions and reports. Notably, both the 107th report of the Law Commission in 1999 and the 22nd Law Commission’s recommendations in 2018 have called for restoring simultaneous elections, emphasizing the need for a more coherent electoral framework.
- Current Election Landscape:
Currently, elections for the Lok Sabha and state assemblies can occur at different times, sometimes leading to confusion among voters. In the past decade, the frequency of elections has increased, with multiple states holding elections within months of each other. This fragmentation strains administrative resources and places an excessive burden on the Election Commission, which must manage multiple election cycles in quick succession.
- Benefits of Simultaneous Elections:
Supporters of ONOE argue that conducting joint elections could yield several benefits:
Cost Savings
One of the most compelling arguments for ONOE is the potential for significant cost savings. According to estimates, approximately ₹60,000 crore was spent during the 2019 Lok Sabha elections, covering expenses incurred by political parties and the Election Commission of India in managing the polls. By conducting elections simultaneously, these costs could be dramatically reduced.
Administrative Efficiency
The administrative machinery of the state is heavily taxed during elections. The requirement for security personnel, polling staff, and logistical arrangements diverts resources away from regular governance. A simultaneous election would streamline these processes, allowing for better resource allocation and management.
Higher Voter Turnout
There is also a belief that simultaneous elections could lead to higher voter turnout. When elections are held frequently, voter fatigue can set in, potentially discouraging participation. A unified election cycle may energize voters and encourage them to engage more actively in the democratic process.
Reduced Political Campaigning Strain
Frequent elections keep political parties in a constant state of campaign mode, which can detract from their ability to focus on governance. By consolidating election dates, parties can concentrate their efforts on addressing citizens’ concerns rather than perpetually preparing for the next election.
Stability and Governance
Proponents argue that ONOE could lead to greater political stability and improved governance. With less frequent elections, governments would have more time to implement policies and initiatives without the constant interruption of electoral cycles. This stability could create a more conducive environment for economic growth and development.
Improved Focus on Local Issues
Simultaneous elections could allow for a more integrated approach to governance, where local and national issues are addressed cohesively. Currently, local elections can become overshadowed by national issues, leading to a disconnect between state governments and their constituents. ONOE could help bridge this gap, ensuring that local concerns are adequately represented.
- Challenges in Implementing Simultaneous Elections
Despite the potential benefits, the ONOE proposal faces numerous challenges that complicate its implementation:
Constitutional Amendments
Implementing ONOE will require significant constitutional amendments. Key articles, including 83 (Duration of Houses), 85(2)(B) (Sessions of Parliament), and 174(2)(B) (Duration of State Legislatures), will need to be revised. Additionally, amendments to the Representation of the People Act, 1951, are essential for synchronizing the election schedules.
Legislative Hurdles
To effect these changes, the government will need a two-thirds majority in Parliament. Given the current political climate, achieving such consensus may prove difficult. Moreover, ratification from at least half of the states is necessary, adding another layer of complexity to the process.
Political Opposition
Opposition to ONOE has emerged from various political parties, which raise concerns about the potential for increased centralization of power and the diminishing of local political dynamics. Critics argue that a focus on national issues may overshadow regional concerns, leading to an imbalance in representation.
Concerns About Democratic Principles
Critics of ONOE argue that it may undermine the democratic fabric of the country. They fear that centralizing election schedules could lead to an imbalance where national parties exert undue influence over regional parties and local issues. This concern is particularly relevant in a diverse nation like India, where regional parties often play a crucial role in governance.
Logistical Challenges
Implementing simultaneous elections poses logistical challenges, including ensuring adequate availability of electronic voting machines (EVMs), polling staff, and security personnel. The sheer scale of conducting elections across 28 states and 8 Union Territories requires meticulous planning and coordination.
Voter Education and Awareness
Educating the electorate about the new system will be crucial for its success. Voter awareness campaigns will need to be ramped up to ensure that citizens understand the implications of simultaneous elections and how it affects their participation in the democratic process.
Potential Legal Challenges
The proposed amendments may face legal scrutiny, leading to court challenges that could delay implementation. Legal experts warn that the changes required to facilitate ONOE must be carefully crafted to withstand judicial review, ensuring they align with the fundamental principles of democracy.
- Perspectives: For and Against Simultaneous Polls
Supporters’ Viewpoint
Supporters of ONOE advocate for the benefits of reduced costs, enhanced efficiency, and greater political stability. They argue that the current election system is unsustainable and that synchronizing elections will allow governments to focus more effectively on governance.
Critics’ Concerns
Opponents of the proposal express concerns about its potential impact on democracy. They fear that ONOE could lead to an erosion of local representation and amplify the influence of national parties at the expense of regional voices. The democratic spirit of allowing voters to choose their representatives at staggered intervals is a crucial element of India’s political landscape.
The Middle Ground
Some political analysts suggest a middle ground, proposing a phased approach to implementing ONOE. This could involve synchronizing elections for certain states or levels of government as a pilot project, allowing for adjustments based on feedback and outcomes before a full-scale rollout.
The ‘One Nation, One Election’ proposal holds the potential to reshape the electoral landscape in India. While its advocates argue that it could lead to significant efficiencies and improvements in governance, the proposal also invites intense debate about its feasibility and impact on democratic processes.
As discussions unfold, the success of ONOE will depend on navigating its constitutional challenges, addressing concerns from various stakeholders, and ensuring broad political consensus. The complexity of India’s electoral system requires careful consideration of both the benefits and risks associated with this ambitious initiative.
In a nation as diverse as India, the challenge lies not only in the logistics of implementation but also in preserving the democratic principles that form the bedrock of its political system. Balancing efficiency with representation, and national priorities with local concerns, will be critical as India contemplates this new chapter in its electoral journey.
