One Nation, One Election: A Threat to Indian Federalism and Democratic Values?

Dinesh Kumar

The contentious proposal of “One Nation, One Election” (ONOE) has reignited the debate over the balance between governance efficiency and India’s federal structure.

Introduced in the Lok Sabha as the Constitution (129th Amendment) Bill by Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal, the initiative aims to synchronize elections for the Lok Sabha and all state assemblies.

While proponents argue that it promises cost savings, administrative efficiency, and governance stability, critics see it as an encroachment on federal principles and a potential threat to India’s democratic diversity.

One Nation, One Election: A Threat to Indian Federalism and Democratic Values?

The bill was introduced after a heated 90-minute debate, where opposition members fiercely criticized the move, labeling it “anti-constitutional” and contrary to the spirit of federalism.

In the vote that followed, 269 members supported the bill’s introduction while 198 opposed it. While this was sufficient to bring the Bill to the table, the numbers fell short of the two-thirds majority required to pass the legislation. This shortfall highlights the deep divisions within Parliament and casts doubt on the Bill’s feasibility in the face of significant political and constitutional opposition.

What ONOE Proposes

ONOE aims to align the electoral cycles of the Lok Sabha and all state legislative assemblies, effectively conducting national and state elections simultaneously. Advocates of this system argue that it would reduce the enormous costs associated with frequent elections, curtail disruptions caused by the repeated enforcement of the Model Code of Conduct (MCC), and allow policymakers to focus more consistently on governance.

At first glance, the proposal seems like a pragmatic solution to streamline India’s often chaotic and resource-intensive electoral process. However, its implementation would fundamentally alter the current structure of electoral cycles, where elections are staggered based on the dissolution and tenure of individual state legislatures.

Federal Challenges

One of the most significant criticisms of ONOE is its perceived threat to India’s federal structure. The Indian Constitution grants states the autonomy to manage their legislative assemblies, including the power to dissolve them and call for fresh elections based on their unique political circumstances. Synchronizing elections nationwide would undermine this autonomy, compelling states to align their governance schedules with a centrally dictated timeline.

This centralization of power, critics argue, is in direct conflict with the federal spirit of the Constitution, which recognizes and protects the diversity and independence of India’s states. Such a system risks marginalizing state-specific issues during elections, as national concerns would dominate the discourse, potentially sidelining regional needs and priorities.

Additionally, ONOE raises practical governance concerns. In cases where a state government collapses mid-term, the proposal suggests the imposition of President’s Rule until the next synchronized election. This could leave states without an elected government for extended periods, depriving citizens of representation and governance tailored to their immediate needs.

Constitutional and Logistical Hurdles

The implementation of the “One Nation, One Election” (ONOE) proposal indeed involves overcoming significant constitutional and logistical challenges. These include amendments to several key constitutional provisions, such as:

Article 83: Governing the duration of the Parliament, this article would need to be amended to synchronize the tenure of the Lok Sabha and the state legislatures. Adjustments to the duration of either would require an extraordinary legislative mandate and political consensus.
Article 172: This governs the duration of state legislatures, which also have independent electoral cycles. Amendments here would align their tenure with the Lok Sabha, requiring simultaneous elections.
Article 356: This provision deals with President’s Rule, which can dissolve a state legislature if the governance machinery fails. Implementing ONOE might necessitate safeguards against frequent use of this provision to maintain the alignment of election cycles.
Article 324: This defines the powers and responsibilities of the Election Commission of India (ECI). ONOE would demand a significant expansion of ECI’s logistical capacity, including enhanced infrastructure, human resources, and technology, to manage elections on this scale efficiently.

These amendments would not only require a two-thirds majority in Parliament but also the ratification of at least half the state legislatures, given the direct impact on states. Furthermore, the amendments must withstand judicial scrutiny under the “basic structure doctrine,” which safeguards the federal and democratic framework of the Constitution.

Logistically, conducting simultaneous elections across a country as vast and diverse as India poses a monumental challenge. Managing the election process for over a billion voters, spread across urban and rural areas with varying levels of infrastructure, would require extraordinary coordination. The availability of sufficient polling personnel, security forces, and administrative resources to ensure free and fair elections would be a significant concern.

Moreover, aligning election cycles would necessitate either curtailing or extending the terms of existing governments, a move fraught with ethical and constitutional dilemmas. Shortening a government’s term could undermine the mandate given by voters, while extending it without elections raises questions about democratic accountability.

The Political Divide

The ONOE proposal has deepened the divide between the ruling party and the opposition. The government argues that simultaneous elections would enhance governance efficiency, reduce electoral fatigue, and enable long-term planning and development. However, opposition parties have accused the government of undermining democratic norms and ignoring the complexities of India’s political landscape.

Smaller regional parties, in particular, have voiced strong opposition, fearing that simultaneous elections would diminish their influence. With the focus on national elections, regional issues and parties could be overshadowed by larger national political narratives. Critics also warn that ONOE could disproportionately benefit dominant national parties, further centralizing power and marginalizing regional voices.

The Broader Implications

While the bill has been introduced, its passage remains uncertain. Even if it clears the parliamentary hurdle, the government faces the formidable task of building consensus with state governments, many of which are wary of losing their autonomy. Public opinion, too, would play a crucial role, as such a transformative proposal demands widespread consultation and deliberation.

ONOE also raises questions about the broader implications for India’s democracy. Elections are not merely a logistical exercise; they are a vital expression of the country’s political diversity. Staggered elections allow for continuous public engagement, accountability, and the articulation of regional aspirations. A single, synchronized election cycle could dilute these aspects, altering the dynamic between the center and states and potentially reshaping India’s political landscape.

The debate over “One Nation, One Election” is a reflection of the delicate balance between efficiency and federalism in Indian governance. While the idea offers clear advantages, such as cost savings and streamlined governance, its potential to undermine the federal structure and democratic values cannot be ignored.

Before moving forward, the government must engage in transparent and inclusive consultations with all stakeholders, including political parties, state governments, constitutional experts, and civil society. The proposal, if implemented, must ensure that it does not compromise the spirit of the Constitution or the diversity that defines India’s democracy.

ONOE may promise administrative efficiency, but such efficiency cannot come at the cost of marginalizing the voices of India’s states or undermining the principles of representation and accountability that are the cornerstones of the nation’s democratic fabric.

Dinesh Kumar, Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, Bhagat Phool Singh Mahila Vishwavidyalaya Khanpur kalan Sonipat Haryana

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.