Sourav Shekhar is a final-year BA LLB student at RNB Global University.
Introduction
The concept of “One Nation, One Election” has been a heated debate in the political and legal circles of India. The proposition goes to state that elections all over the country need to be unified in such a way that the elections to the Lok Sabha, State Legislative Assemblies, Municipal Corporations, and Panchayats are held together. Efficiency, cost savings, and a reduction in the disturbances caused by the frequency of elections will be assured by this idea. It does, however, open a Pandora’s Box of serious questions over its feasibility, implications for federalism, and implementation challenges.
In as large and intricately organized a democratic federal system as India, the concept of simultaneous elections is novel and challenging at the same time. The discussion relating to ONOE spans across various dimensions: constitutional amendments, logistics that come along as hurdles, governance issues, and undermining of India’s federal structure. This article goes in-depth into the concept of ONOE, looking into the possible benefits and drawbacks, and researching practical, constitutional, and democratic mandates for ONOE.
Historical Background
The electoral landscape of India has undergone a sea of change since independence. In the first three general elections in 1952, 1957, and 1962, elections to both Lok Sabha (Parliament) and State Legislative Assemblies were held simultaneously. The electoral cycle started to diverge from 1967 onward due to premature dissolutions of some state assemblies and the Lok Sabha itself. This decoupling has led to the current situation where elections are held every year in one state or another, mostly within months of national elections.
This frequent election cycle has brought up concerns about disruptions in governance, economic costs, and what it means for policymaking. ONOE came up as part of a possible solution to this issue, and its proponents argued that a concomitant election would ease governance, cut costs, and thereby bring political stability.
The Case for One Nation, One Election
The advocates of ONOE argue that simultaneous elections may possess a few desirable attributes while dealing with various issues ranging from better governance and economic management to strengthening democratic participation. In detail, the counter-arguments against these propositions are presented in the succeeding arguments:
Expenditure due to Elections:
Elections in India are a costly affair; enormous expenses are spent by the government and political parties. This costs thousands of crores of rupees when only elections to the Lok Sabha are held. If state elections are held separately, it adds considerably to the expenditure. Besides government expenditure on creating election infrastructure, security, and deploying manpower, political parties spend large sums on campaigns. Simultaneous elections will save India a lot of public money besides easing the financial burden on political parties.
Improvement in Governance:
Frequent elections in various states also mean that the Model Code of Conduct is frequently imposed, which prohibits the announcement or implementation of any new policy by the government. MCC has been formulated with the purpose of providing a level playing field for all political parties during the election and ensuring that the ruling party does not have an unfair advantage in the election by launching populist schemes. But the moment elections are staggered during the year; MCC gets into action very oft, leading to policy paralysis. If elections were to be held simultaneously, the periods of MCC enforcement would also reduce and thereby the governments could function uninterruptedly, take decisions quickly, and also implement policies without the fear of being misinterpreted as politically motivated.
Political Stability and Consistent Policy-Making:
This often puts the governments on a continuous election mode at the state and national levels. As elections approach near in one or another part of the country, the ruling parties generally pursue short-term populist steps to woo the electorates rather than long-term policies for the benefit of the entire nation. Therefore, simultaneous elections may allow the governments to spend more on development, policy implementation, and governance rather than on continuous campaigning.
Increase in Voter Turnout and Democratic Participation:
This means that at one and the same time, voters will take part in national, state, and local bodies elections. Voters may therefore feel more responsible and interested. Moreover, there would only be one election that a voter prepares for. Voter mobilization efforts and improvement of voter education would achieve an upward spiral in democratic participation.
Free Election Law from Criminal Activities:
The sheer proliferation of elections in the states allows more avenues for practices such as vote-buying, electoral violence, and vested-interest manipulation. Decreasing the frequency of elections reduces this score of avenues. Besides, the presence of security forces and oversight mechanisms can be condensed into one single event of election, thereby minimizing the element of fraud in the electoral process.
Fewer Burdens on Security Forces:
Every election in India requires a massive deployment of security personnel to ensure free and fair voting. In the prevalent scenario, security forces are deployed quite frequently across different states, which may strain the resources and logistics. Simultaneous elections will provide an opportunity for the government to plan and allocate the security forces optimally and manage them better, thereby reducing fatigue among the personnel.
Challenges and Concerns
While the advantages of ONOE are immense, the obstacles in its path are equally formidable. Starting from constitutional obstacles to logistical issues, ONOE will need a complete revamp of the Indian electoral system.
Key issues involved are:
Constitutional Amendments: The Constitution of India stipulates definite terms for both the Lok Sabha as well as State Legislative Assemblies. While Article 83 provides that the Lok Sabha shall run for a term of five years unless dissolved earlier, Article 172 provides for a five-year term for the State Legislative Assembly. For implementing ONOE, there would be a requirement for a number of constitutional amendments, especially to Articles 83, 172, and 356. These amendments would have to provide for extending or cutting short the terms of the Lok Sabha and assemblies in order to start moving their election cycles together. Reaching the required political consensus to effect such an amendment is no mean task.
Dealing with Premature Dissolutions: One of the most important issues involved is what happens if a government falls before its full term. Under the current regime, whenever a ruling party or coalition of parties loses a majority in the Lok Sabha or in a state assembly, fresh elections are announced. That would break the synchrony of elections. Thereafter, temporary governance arrangement as in President’s Rule or caretaker governments, as is being done for the time being, till the time of the next synchronized election, will have to be provided for. The very legitimacy and effectiveness of interim governments will be questioned.
Logistical and Administrative Challenges: Holding simultaneous elections across the breadth and length of India would be a major logistical nightmare. The Election Commission of India would have to deploy staff in large numbers for electoral constituencies, polling booths, electronic voting machines, and security forces. Managing the logistics of simultaneous elections for the Lok Sabha, 29 state assemblies, and thousands of local bodies would call for unprecedented coordination and planning. Besides, the scale of the exercise could further increase delays in vote counting and declaration of results, and consequential delay in the formation of governments.
Impact on Federalism: India’s federal system allows states to have their own governments with distinct identities, policies, and priorities. Many times, state elections revolve around purely local issues, with regional parties playing a predominant role in the elections. Simultaneous elections to the state assemblies will blur the lines between national and state issues, with the national narrative hogging the limelight during state elections. Such a change would undermine the role of regional parties and weaken the country’s federal structure. Moreover, synchronization will drain away the powers that assure the autonomy of the states, with the starting of their electoral cycle at the beck and call of national timelines.
Diverse Regional Needs and Political Dynamics: India is a large country of diversities, and each region has its unique political, cultural, and socioeconomic dynamics. Regional issues would always remain something different from national issues, such as water disputes, land reforms, or local development challenges, against defense, foreign policy, and macroeconomic policy. Simultaneous elections would thus result in a situation where national issues would override the local concerns, thereby weakening the people’s franchise at the state and local levels. Ensuring Synchronization of Election Cycles:
About this, another fear is that, during voting, voters may stress more on national-level issues. The state level leadership and issues are hence subjugated or ignored at the state level.
Disruption of Election Cycles: The elected term of a partial legislative house and some other bodies would have to be prolonged or shortened to achieve synchronization. The prolonging of the term of a particular government without an election would also not reflect a democratic spirit, since people set and assign their mandate for a particular period of time. Curtailment of the government term would on the contrary lead to political instability as leaders have been deprived of the time that they were supposed to have to complete their entire term of office. Probably losing a people’s mandate through disturbances could be seen as eroding the very democratic process of elections and leadership to be held accountable.
International Comparison
Countries with simultaneous elections have many lessons in plenty to share with India. Other countries like South Africa, Sweden, and Indonesia hold simultaneous elections at various levels of governance: for instance, in South Africa, national parliament, provincial legislatures, and municipal councils have simultaneous elections every five years. Sweden has held simultaneous elections for the national parliament and the local councils. Indonesia follows a synchronized election model for the national and local levels as well.
But India is infinitely different from them because of its size, diversity, and federal structure. In such federal democracies as the United States, different elections to the federal government and state governments are run separately, allowing more flexibility to meet the peculiar needs of different states. In the U.S. pattern, states in the federal scheme are accorded autonomy, a principle which, some claim, should be adhered to in India too.
Practical Feasibility and Policy Suggestions
Considering these numerous ills with ONOE, it may be more feasible to adopt a graduated or hybrid system. Instead of attempting simultaneous enforcement across the country in one fell swoop, a few states might begin synchronizing their electoral cycles with the national one. In this manner, governments and their electoral bodies can evaluate the impact and challenges entailed by such synchronization without disrupting the whole electoral machinery.
The phased synchronization would further allow an opportunity to test the waters with constitutional amendments and see options like constructive votes of no-confidence-as, in fact, in Germany-preventing prematurely dissolving legislatures. Application of constructive votes of no-confidence, for instance, would stipulate that no government can be removed unless a new government is voted in at the same time, thus allowing political stability in tandem with setting Election Cycles in sync.
This could be followed by synchronizing elections for national bodies like the Lok Sabha with those for bigger state assemblies, while allowing smaller states and local bodies to continue their independent cycles. This would equitably balance national and local political concerns while easing the logistical burden on the Election Commission.
Conclusion
The concept of One Nation, One Election thus gives hope for a solution to the myriad challenges that a fragmented electoral system presents in India. It can help in simplifying governance, reducing the cost of holding elections, and ensuring greater political stability. However, on the other hand, the constitutional, logistical, and political challenges are not small. The state will have to implement ONOE through a well-planned strategy that will respect the federal character of the country’s democracy but will sort out the issues of political diversity and regional autonomy.
ONOE is an innovative idea, indeed, but a pragmatic approach has got to be circumspect. Scaling up of ONOE with the constitutional amendments required, necessary legal impediments, and pilot projects for the same would bring about synchronized elections without hurting the democratic ethos of this country. This debate on ONOE is greatly essential for Indian democracy, and any attempt at its implementation should be rightly preceded by a proper comprehension of its various complexities.
