India’s proposal for ‘One Nation, One Election’ (ONOE) has sparked widespread debate. The idea aims to synchronize elections for the Lok Sabha (Parliament) and state assemblies, reducing the frequency of elections in the country. While the proposal has some merits, its implementation faces numerous challenges. Below is a detailed exploration of these challenges, broken into key points.
1. Historical Background
- Origin of ONOE: India initially followed a synchronized election system post-independence. The first general elections in 1951-52 and subsequent elections until 1967 were conducted concurrently for both Lok Sabha and state assemblies.
- Disruption: The cycle was disrupted after some state governments were dissolved prematurely due to political instability in the late 1960s, leading to staggered elections.
- Revival Attempts: The ONOE proposal has been supported by several leaders, including former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee and the current Prime Minister Narendra Modi. However, it has faced resistance from opposition parties and experts who argue it undermines federalism.
2. Supporters and Opponents
- Supporters: The BJP and its allies have been vocal advocates of ONOE, citing benefits like cost savings, reduced election fatigue, and improved governance.
- Opponents: Opposition parties, regional leaders, and constitutional experts have raised concerns about its impact on democracy and federalism.
3. Reasons for the Shift from ONOE
- Political Instability: In the 1960s and 1970s, frequent dissolutions of state assemblies disrupted the synchronization of elections.
- Judicial Interventions: Landmark judgments allowed for mid-term polls and ensured democratic processes, further contributing to the staggered election system.
4. Impact on Recently Elected State Governments
- If ONOE is implemented, state governments elected mid-term may face dissolution or curtailment of their tenure to align with the synchronized schedule. This raises questions about the democratic mandate and fairness to voters.
5. Financial Implications
- Cost Savings: Proponents argue that ONOE will reduce the high expenses of frequent elections. For example, the Election Commission of India estimated over ₹60,000 crore was spent in the 2019 Lok Sabha elections.
- Initial Costs: Implementing ONOE would require significant expenditure to procure additional electronic voting machines (EVMs) and voter verifiable paper audit trails (VVPATs).
6. Challenges to India’s Democracy
- Federalism: India’s democratic structure relies on the autonomy of state governments. ONOE could centralize power and weaken federal principles.
- Electoral Choice: Regional and local issues may be overshadowed by national narratives, reducing voters’ ability to make informed decisions for state governance.
- Election Commission Overload: Conducting simultaneous elections for the entire country would place immense logistical and operational pressure on the Election Commission.
7. Mid-term Government Failures
- Loss of Majority: If a government loses its majority before its term ends, ONOE would necessitate either a caretaker government or the imposition of President’s Rule until the next synchronized election.
- By-elections: In case of the death or resignation of an MP or MLA, frequent by-elections would be inevitable, defeating the purpose of cost and time savings.
8. Logistical and Legal Hurdles
- Constitutional Amendments: Implementing ONOE would require amendments to multiple constitutional provisions, including Articles 83, 85, 172, and 174.
- Infrastructure: Ensuring sufficient EVMs, VVPATs, and polling personnel to conduct simultaneous elections nationwide would be a herculean task.
- Consensus Building: Achieving political consensus among diverse parties with varying interests remains a significant challenge.
9. Impact on Local Governance
- Local and state issues may be overshadowed by national campaigns, affecting governance and voter priorities.
- Small parties and independent candidates might struggle to compete against large national parties during synchronized elections.
10. Risk of Centralized Power
- Simultaneous elections may lead to a “nationalized” political landscape, where regional diversity and autonomy are diminished.
- This poses a threat to the world’s largest democracy, which thrives on its pluralism and diversity.
11. Alternatives to ONOE
- Phased Synchronization: Aligning state elections in phases rather than all at once could reduce election frequency without disrupting governance.
- Electoral Reforms: Addressing issues like political funding and voter awareness could strengthen democracy without requiring ONOE.
Conclusion
While the concept of ‘One Nation, One Election’ promises several benefits, it faces significant constitutional, logistical, and democratic challenges. A careful evaluation of its impact on India’s federal structure and pluralistic society is essential before moving forward.