One Nation, One Election: A Revolutionary Reform or a Threat to Democracy?

Dikumoni Hazarika

The introduction of the One Nation, One Election Bill in the Lok Sabha by Union Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal has sparked intense debate across political and public spheres.

While 269 Members of Parliament voted in Favor, 198 opposed the bill, reflecting the contentious nature of this proposed electoral reform. The idea aims to simplify India’s electoral process by synchronizing the election cycles of the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies.

However, the implications of this ambitious reform extend far beyond administrative efficiency, with proponents and critics presenting contrasting viewpoints.

One Nation, One Election: A Revolutionary Reform or a Threat to Democracy?

Historical Context

India conducted simultaneous elections for the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies from 1951 to 1967. This practice ended due to the premature dissolution of some State Assemblies and the Fourth Lok Sabha in the late 1960s. The political instability of subsequent decades led to staggered elections, which have since become the norm. India’s democratic system has seen over 400 elections to the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies since independence.

However, frequent elections have raised concerns about inefficiency. The goal of simultaneous elections, also known as One Nation, One Election, is to match the dates of the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies elections. Voters would cast their ballots for both on the same day, though the process could still take place in phases across the country. This approach aims to reduce logistical challenges, cut costs, and minimize disruptions.

Over the years, frequent elections have created logistical and financial challenges, leading to discussions about reviving the simultaneous elections model. The High-Level Committee on Simultaneous Elections, chaired by former President Ram Nath Kovind, provided a roadmap for implementing this reform. After consulting the public, political parties, and experts, the committee released its findings.

The report recommended constitutional amendments to Articles 82A and 324A to facilitate simultaneous elections. The proposal suggests implementing these changes in two phases: first, synchronizing elections for the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies, and second, for local bodies like Municipalities and Panchayats.

The committee’s report, accepted by the Union Cabinet in September 2024, forms the backbone of the current proposal. The committee also proposed creating a Single Electoral Roll and a Single EPIC for all government elections. Public feedback showed widespread concern over the negative impacts of frequent elections, such as voter fatigue and governance disruptions, which the simultaneous elections aim to address.

The rationale for simultaneous elections includes promoting consistency in governance, preventing policy paralysis, reducing resource diversion, preserving regional party relevance, and enhancing political opportunities. It would allow political parties to focus more on governance instead of constant election campaigns.

Financially, it would lower the costs related to election cycles. However, the bill is also seen as granting disproportionate powers to the Election Commission and central authorities, undermining state autonomy and marginalize regional parties, as national issues may dominate, and raise concerns about the consolidation of political power in larger national parties, limiting electoral competition.

Opposition leaders have strongly criticized the bill. Congress MP Priyanka Gandhi Vadra called it “anti-constitutional” and argued that it undermines federalism. She emphasized that the proposed changes were a direct threat to federalism, asserting that such a move would centralize power, weakening the autonomy of state governments.

Trinamool Congress MP Abhishek Banerjee labelled it an “attack on democracy,” while Asaduddin Owaisi leader of the All India Majlis-e-Ittehad-ul-Muslimeen (AIMIM), questioned its compatibility with the principles of self-governance and parliamentary democracy. He emphasized that the bill went against the core tenet of federalism, which envisions that states are not subordinate to the central government.

Other MPs, like Gaurav Gogoi and ET Mohammed Basheer, also opposed the bill, citing concerns about constitutional integrity and citizens’ voting rights.TR Baalu from the DMK raised constitutional concerns, questioning how the government could introduce such a bill when it lacked the requisite two-thirds majority in Parliament, making the bill procedurally questionable.

Dharmendra Yadav of the Samajwadi Party also opposed the bill, asserting that it would strip India of its diversity and federal character, transforming the country into a more centralized, authoritarian system.

Some parties, however, have shown support for the bill. For example, the Telugu Desam Party (TDP) expressed unwavering backing for the proposal. Union Minister JP Nadda President of the Bharatiya Janata Party defended the bill, stressing that the lotus symbol in the Constitution represented India’s democratic strength.

He highlighted the country’s resilience and ongoing efforts to strengthen democracy, pointing to the historical significance of the Constitution’s design and its aspirations for the future. While critics claim it violates the Constitution’s basic structure, others see it as a necessary step toward improving the country’s electoral process.

The concept of One Nation, One Election represents a bold vision for India’s democratic future. While its potential benefits are significant, implementing this reform requires addressing legitimate concerns about federalism, logistical feasibility, and constitutional amendments. Building consensus across political parties and state governments is crucial for the success of this initiative.

India stands at a crossroads, where the balance between governance efficiency and democratic principles must be carefully maintained. The ongoing debates surrounding the bill highlight the importance of thoughtful deliberation and inclusivity in shaping the country’s electoral reforms. The proposed reforms aim to strengthen India’s electoral process and improve governance efficiency.

The ONOE proposal has the potential to reshape India’s political landscape in several ways. By consolidating elections into a single electoral system, it could enhance voter engagement, as citizens may feel more connected to the democratic process. This unified approach could simplify the electoral cycle and encourage greater participation, which is a positive sign for a vibrant democracy like India.

With fewer elections scattered across time, the focus could shift towards more meaningful debates and discussions, ultimately strengthening democratic participation at all levels.

DIKUMONI HAZARIKA, PhD. Research Scholar (Political Science), Panjab University

Mahabahu.com is an Online Magazine with collection of premium Assamese and English articles and posts with cultural base and modern thinking. You can send your articles to editor@mahabahu.com / editor@mahabahoo.com(For Assamese article, Unicode font is necessary) Images from different sources.