“One Nation-One Election” is vital for good governance

The idea of “One Nation, One Election” (ONOE) is not new. However, it has once again come into prominence after it was mooted by the Union Parliamentary Affairs Minister on 31 August 2023. The Government of India (GoI), merely a day later, announced the formation of a committee headed by the former President of India, Ramnath Kovind, to consider the prospect of simultaneous elections throughout the country. This triggered a heated debate among political parties, academicians, political commentators and the media for several days till it was overshadowed by the introduction of the Women’s Reservation Bill. The ONOE committee held its first meeting on 23 September 2023 and decided to invite national parties, recognised state parties and state government representatives for suggestions. It has also sought inputs from the Law Commission.

The ONOE committee held its first meeting on 23 September 2023 and decided to invite national parties, recognised state parties and state government representatives for suggestions.

The concept, in essence, proposes the conduct of elections to the Lok Sabha, or the Lower House of Parliament, and all state legislative assemblies within a specific time frame in a single year and once every five years. Through such a fixed election window, it wishes to end the spectre of perpetual elections in the country. Such nationwide polls would involve elections to legislative assemblies of 28 states and union territories spread over thousands of kilometres.

In the earliest decades of independent India, concurrent elections were held in 1952, 1957, 1962, and 1967. All state legislative assembly elections during these years were held simultaneously with Parliamentary elections. However, in later years, the vagaries of politics and other circumstances broke that unified cycle. The premature dissolution of a few legislative assemblies in 1968 and 1969 disrupted this pattern of synchronised elections. In 1970, the fourth Lok Sabha itself was dissolved before it completed its term. Over a period of time, elections spread themselves out, making this phenomenon a perennial feature of India’s democracy.

The premature dissolution of a few legislative assemblies in 1968 and 1969 disrupted this pattern of synchronised elections.

The framers of the Constitution had always envisaged simultaneous elections and had kept the provisions of ONOE in the Constitution. In 2015, GoI asked the Election Commission (EC) whether it could conduct simultaneous nationwide polls. The EC conveyed that this was indeed possible, but it warranted amendments to the Constitution and the Representation of People Act of 1951. At the same time, it would require adequate resources such as the electronic voting machines (EVM) manufactured and supplied to meet the heightened demand. In conjunction, simultaneous elections would need the deployment of paramilitary forces in sufficient numbers to maintain law and order across the country.

Supporters of simultaneous elections point to several ills that have accrued out of the current system of perennial elections. Perennial elections drain the public exchequer of money on non-productive items for an unending electoral process. Such expenditure could be avoided or significantly reduced if elections were held together. Today, GoI bears the entire expenditure in the conduct of the Lok Sabha elections and state governments on elections to state legislatures. According to a Centre for Media Studies report, around INR 55,000 crores or US$8 billion, were spent for the Lok Sabha elections in 2019. Almost an equivalent amount was reportedly spent in subsequent state elections. Their simultaneous conduct would substantially cut expenditures, and money could be better utilised in developmental programmes. Political parties themselves are pressed to spend, among other things, on election campaigns and advertisements. These, over time, have become highly expensive and put enormous pressure on political parties and candidates to collect resources from various donors. The impact of this phenomenon has been very toxic, both in terms of governance, integrity, and probity.

Perennial elections drain the public exchequer of money on non-productive items for an unending electoral process.

Secondly, the security forces get tied for extensive periods in election-related movements, thereby diluting their primary duty of maintaining national security and availability for major law and order situations. The forces deployed comprise the Central Armed Police Forces, the state armed police, home guards and the district police. In the current scenario, this deployment is very frequent since, on average, two to five state assemblies go to polls every six months. Given the fractured nature of politics in some states, elections are spread out over days and weeks to move forces in large numbers to keep the peace. This is neither good for the forces nor for peace and normal life in the states.

Those against ONOE point out the current constitutional architecture that will not permit its practice. A series of complex amendments need to be made to the Constitution and the election law. Furthermore, they will harm the national federal structure and weigh heavily against smaller and state political parties, as issues valid for a specific state will not find independent breathing space and deliberation when national and state elections are clubbed. They will, perforce, get sidelined in the shadow of overpowering national issues.

There could be some merit in the arguments pressed by opponents of ONOE. However, opinions in favour or against, as well as gains by some political parties and losses to others, cannot be the decisive factors in a decision of this significance and magnitude. The two sides of ONOE need to be weighed on the scale of national interest and the overall interest of its citizens. There is little doubt that the outcome of perennial elections over several decades has been replete with negative national fallouts.

The two sides of ONOE need to be weighed on the scale of national interest and the overall interest of its citizens.

Perennial elections have brought out the ugly side of India’s diversity—in region, caste, language, community, and voter appeasement. Political parties, eager to retain their hold and searching for electoral victory, have been going to extremes in exploiting the dormant societal divisions and, in many cases, manufacturing dissensions to drive new wedges in society. These have been highly detrimental to the national fabric and could feed discords rather than unity. These tendencies will have much less space to play if concurrent elections are held once in five years. They will also help drive out issues of disharmony from the normal daily discourse as they have become today. ONOE will be a massive step in that direction.

Along with the toxicity in the political language is the near-total lack of observance of the principle of good governance as elections appear to be around the corner. The announcement of freebies and different packages for different social groups indicates extreme pandering to which political parties take recourse. No thought is given to the social and financial repercussions of such announcements and even the implementability of the assurances given. ONOE would at least limit the damage caused by such a blind race towards garnering votes at the cost of national salubrity.

The bureaucracy plays it safe and tends to shut shop even on some routine matters for fear of breaching the code.

The Election Commission’s code of conduct puts a spanner in normal developmental works. Until the code is in force, no new programmes can be announced, and no fresh contracts can be awarded. The bureaucracy plays it safe and tends to shut shop even on some routine matters for fear of breaching the code. It is evident that multiple elections lead to multiple periods of developmental disruption as the code is implemented. There is a substantial delay in the implementation of developmental works, putting states and the nation behind by several months per year in their march towards a more prosperous nation.

In sum, an election should mark the celebration of a vibrant democracy. It should not degenerate into an exercise maximising polarisation based on socio-economic toxicity. ONOE would be a great help in substantially minimising this adverse impact.

Ramanath Jha is Distinguished Fellow at Observer Research Foundation