On December 12, 2024, the government introduced two crucial bills in the Lok Sabha aiming to implement the concept of “One Nation, One Election” (ONOE). Despite strong opposition from various parties in the INDIA alliance, the bills were introduced after a division vote, with 269 members in favor and 198 opposing. While the opposition claimed a victory, arguing that the government had failed to secure a two-thirds majority for introducing the bills, a closer look at the parliamentary procedures reveals that such a majority is not required at this stage.
The key issue lies in the procedural rules for the introduction of constitutional amendment bills. According to Rule 157 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Lok Sabha, bills that propose amendments to the Constitution can be introduced with a simple majority of members present and voting. A two-thirds majority is only necessary at later stages, such as the passage of the bill after detailed discussions and considerations. As a result, the opposition’s claim of a procedural win appears to be more symbolic than substantive. Nevertheless, the bills are likely to face extensive scrutiny and debate in the coming months, including a potential referral to a joint committee of Parliament for further deliberation.
What Is One Nation, One Election?
“One Nation, One Election” refers to the proposal to synchronize elections for the central government and all state legislatures, as well as local bodies, to occur at the same time every five years. This would replace the current system where elections for the Lok Sabha (central government) and various state assemblies are held at different times, leading to frequent electoral cycles.
The idea of simultaneous elections is not new in India. It was practiced from 1951 to 1967, until political instability and early dissolutions of state assemblies led to staggered elections. Since then, there have been several proposals and recommendations for reintroducing synchronized elections, including from the Election Commission (1983), Law Commission (1999), and NITI Aayog (2017).
A panel led by former President Ram Nath Kovind, formed by the central government, submitted its recommendations in 2023 for conducting simultaneous elections. This panel proposed constitutional amendments, including aligning state assembly elections with the general elections, and suggested holding local body elections within 100 days.
Why the Push for One Nation, One Election?
The primary arguments in favor of ONOE revolve around efficiency and cost savings:
- Reduction in Election Costs: Elections in India are highly expensive, with the 2019 general elections alone costing approximately ₹600 billion (around $7 billion). Holding simultaneous elections could significantly cut these costs by reducing the need for multiple election cycles and administrative processes.
- Improved Governance: With elections held less frequently, governance could be more stable, and the government could focus on long-term policies rather than being caught up in continuous election cycles. Proponents argue that the current system, where elections are held every few months, disrupts the continuity of governance.
- Efficiency in Administrative Resources: Conducting separate elections requires substantial resources from the Election Commission, law enforcement, and other governmental bodies. A single election could reduce the strain on these institutions and allow for more efficient resource allocation.
Challenges and Criticism of One Nation, One Election
Despite these arguments, there are several challenges and criticisms of the ONOE proposal, primarily revolving around its impact on the federal structure, logistical feasibility, and political implications.
India’s political system is based on a federal structure where power is shared between the central government and the state governments. States have significant autonomy in conducting their own elections, addressing local issues, and electing their representatives. Critics argue that ONOE could undermine this autonomy by centralizing power in the hands of the national government. The synchronization of elections could give national parties an undue advantage, particularly at the expense of regional parties that focus on local issues. This may result in diminished political representation for state-specific concerns.
Regional parties and opposition groups, particularly from non-BJP-ruled states, have raised concerns that the proposal would effectively reduce their political significance, as national parties could dominate the electoral process at both the central and state levels.
Implementing ONOE would require substantial logistical planning and financial resources. The current election system in India already faces challenges in organizing elections for its vast electorate of nearly 900 million people. According to reports, the cost of procuring new voting machines and security arrangements for simultaneous elections would be considerable. A 2015 parliamentary committee report estimated that holding synchronized elections would require an additional ₹92.84 billion for new voting and paper audit trail machines, along with regular replacements every 15 years.
Moreover, ensuring adequate election officials and security personnel across the country for a single election would place significant strain on India’s administrative capacity, particularly in remote or conflict-prone areas. While proponents argue that ONOE would reduce overall costs, the logistical challenges of executing such a large-scale operation could end up being more expensive than anticipated.
To implement ONOE, India’s Constitution would need to be amended. Several constitutional provisions would require revision to allow for synchronized elections, such as those related to the dissolution of state assemblies and the timing of elections. According to Article 368 of the Constitution, any such amendment must be ratified by a majority of the state assemblies, which means that the government will need to secure the approval of at least 14 out of 28 state assemblies. This may be difficult given the lack of a two-thirds majority in the Rajya Sabha (Council of States), where the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and its allies do not hold a dominant position.
The opposition has voiced concerns over the constitutional changes required for ONOE, arguing that these amendments could erode the federal balance and reduce the powers of state governments. In addition, any potential legal challenges to the changes could delay or prevent the implementation of synchronized elections.
One of the most significant risks of implementing ONOE is the potential for political instability. If the ruling national government loses in a synchronized election, it could lead to a situation where both the central government and several state governments face challenges, potentially triggering a nationwide political crisis. Furthermore, the proposal could lead to less frequent, but more intense, electoral cycles, which could increase political polarization and conflict.
Opposition parties have also raised the concern that ONOE could disproportionately benefit national parties, especially the BJP, which has a stronger presence across most states compared to regional parties. They argue that this could lead to an uneven playing field, where smaller parties may struggle to compete in a system dominated by national elections.
As the government pushes forward with its legislative agenda, it will need to address these concerns and build a broader political consensus to ensure that the move is beneficial for the country’s democratic fabric. The bills will likely face more scrutiny in the coming months, and their passage will depend on both political will and the resolution of key challenges.
