The One Nation, One Election (ONOE) proposal offers some compelling advantages and significant concerns, making it a deeply debated issue in India’s political landscape. According to the proponents, simultaneous elections could lead to more efficient governance by reducing election fatigue, saving administrative costs, and minimizing the frequent disruptions that occur due to continuous campaigning. Whereas critics contend that simultaneous elections could undermine the regional autonomy of states by overshadowing local issues with national agendas and threats to democracy. Elections at the national level typically revolve around larger, often pan-Indian issues, which could dominate the state-level narratives and dilute the significance of region-specific concerns. In addition, a single election process may further sideline smaller or regional parties as national parties with more resources will have an upper hand in such a massive and complicated electoral exercise. This may cause a disturbance in the delicate balance of India’s federal system where state governments have their own powers and priorities. 

The aim of this article is to understand “One Nation, One Election” (ONOE) in India and to analyze the advantages and disadvantages of ONOE which will help citizens of India to form opinions on it.

What is One Nation, One Election?

One Nation, One Election” (ONOE) is a proposal which calls for simultaneous elections for the Lok Sabha, which is the national Parliament, and all state legislative assemblies in India. In the current system, elections are conducted at different times for different legislative bodies, but in this system, elections for central and state governments are coordinated and held simultaneously once every five years.

History and Evolution of “One Nation, One Election”

Simultaneous Elections Era (1951–1967): India conducted its first general elections in 1951-52, with simultaneous polls for the Lok Sabha and state assemblies. This practice continued until 1967, as the five-year terms of both Parliament and state assemblies remained synchronized.

Shift to Staggered Elections (Post-1967): Premature dissolution of certain state assemblies and the Lok Sabha disrupted the synchronization. Political instability during the 1970s and 1980s led to separate election schedules for various states and Parliament. Since then, elections have become a year-round affair, with different states and the national Parliament having their own election timelines.

Recent Developments: Committees have been set up to examine the legal, constitutional, and logistical challenges of ONOE. Parliament has witnessed debates on the feasibility and implications of simultaneous elections. The proposal has gained friction, as a significant electoral reform while also sparking concerns about its impact on federalism and voter representation. 

Constitutional Provisions and Legal Framework for “One Nation, One Election”

The idea of conducting simultaneous elections for the Lok Sabha (national elections) and State Legislative Assemblies under the “One Nation, One Election” (ONOE) proposal requires changes to India’s constitutional provisions such as :

1. Duration of Lok Sabha

Provision: Article 83(1) stipulates that the Lok Sabha (the House of the People) has a duration of five years from the date of its first meeting after the general election, unless dissolved earlier.

Implication for ONOE: For ONOE to be implemented, there must be a synchronization of the terms of the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies. This could involve extending or shortening the tenure of the current Lok Sabha to align with the state elections, which may require amendments to Article 83.

2. Duration of State Legislative Assemblies

Provision: Article 172(1) defines the duration of state legislative assemblies as five years, similar to the Lok Sabha, unless the assembly is dissolved earlier.

Implication for ONOE: Each state’s legislative assembly may have its own electoral cycle. The dissolution of state assemblies before the completion of their five-year term, often due to political factors, would have to be adjusted to align with the Lok Sabha elections for ONOE to work.

3. Provisions for Dissolution and Summoning Sessions

Article 85: This Article deals with the President’s power to dissolve the Lok Sabha and call for new elections. It allows the Lok Sabha to be dissolved before the expiration of its five-year term if the President decides so.

Article 174: It deals with the power of the Governor of a state to summon and dissolve the state legislature.

Implication for ONOE: If ONOE is implemented, the dissolution and calling of sessions for both the Lok Sabha and state legislative assemblies will need to be coordinated. This could involve overriding the independent powers of the President and Governors regarding the timing of elections, requiring major constitutional amendments.

4. Proclamation of President’s Rule

Article 356 : This article allows the President to impose President’s Rule (direct central control) in a state if the state government cannot function according to the provisions of the Constitution.

Implication for ONOE: Under ONOE, synchronized elections could reduce political instability in states, thereby minimizing the need for President’s Rule. A more stable election cycle could potentially lower the frequency of invoking Article 356.

The Argument for – Simplifying Elections

Pros of “One Nation, One Election” are as follows –

• Cost Efficiency: Conducting elections is an expensive affair in India, with costs borne by both the central and state governments. Simultaneous elections can significantly reduce the recurring expenses of deploying election personnel, setting up polling infrastructure, and ensuring security arrangements.
• Continuity in Governance: Elections often disrupt governance due to the enforcement of the Model Code of Conduct (MCC), which restricts policy announcements and developmental activities. By synchronizing elections, the government can avoid repeated MCC restrictions and maintain policy momentum. 
• Resource Allocation: Security forces are heavily engaged during elections to maintain law and order.  Simultaneous elections would optimize their deployment, allowing them to focus on other pressing duties. 
• Voter Participation: Holding all elections simultaneously could improve voter turnout by creating a single, consolidated election period. This could reduce voter exhaustion, caused by multiple elections in a short span of time. 
• Streamlined Political Campaigning: Continuous elections lead to repeated and often disruptive campaigning.  ONOE could consolidate political campaigning into a single period, reducing disruptions to daily life and economic activity. 

The Argument for – Threat to Democracy

The disadvantages of “One Nation, One Election” are as follows –

• Threat to Federalism: India’s federal structure allows states to exercise autonomy in governance, including deciding their election timelines. Synchronizing elections could centralize power, undermining the federal principle by aligning state decisions too closely with national priorities.
• Loss of Regional Focus: Simultaneous elections may shift voter attention toward national issues, overshadowing state and regional concerns. This could result in a lack of accountability for state governments, as voters might base their decisions on national party performance.
• Logistical and Practical Challenges: Conducting simultaneous elections across a country as vast and diverse as India would require extensive logistical planning. Managing over 900 million eligible voters in one electoral exercise could strain resources, increase the risks of errors, and create delays in the voting and counting process. 
• Impact on Governance During Synchronization: To align election cycles, terms of certain assemblies or the Lok Sabha may need to be extended or curtailed. This would interfere with democratic principles by depriving voters of timely representation or prematurely dissolving elected bodies. 
• Voter Behavior and Confusion: Holding elections for multiple levels of government simultaneously might confuse voters, particularly in rural and less-educated areas. Voters could struggle to differentiate between national and local issues. 
• Political Disturbance and Dominance: National parties with strong central leadership may overshadow regional parties, leading to a decline in political diversity. This could erode the representation of smaller communities and interests at the state level. 
• Legal and Constitutional Complexities: Implementing ONOE would require amendments to multiple constitutional provisions, such as Articles 83, 85, 172, 174, and 356. Achieving political consensus across diverse state and national parties is a significant hurdle, given varying interests and priorities. 
• Risk of Electoral Fatigue and Apathy: Conducting all elections together might overwhelm voters, potentially leading to electoral fatigue and reduced voter engagement. 
• Disruption from Premature Dissolutions: If a government falls before completing its term, either elections would need to be held out of sync, defeating the purpose of ONOE, or emergency provisions would be invoked to maintain alignment. Both scenarios could destabilize democratic norms and governance. 
• Reduced Accountability and Frequent By-Elections: Synchronizing elections might lead to an overreliance on mid-term elections to address vacancies or crises, diluting the benefits of ONOE. Governments might become less accountable if elections are seen as a distant event, rather than a recurring mechanism for public feedback. 

Conclusion

The One Nation, One Election idea, therefore, presents both pros and cons for India’s democratic framework. On the one hand, it will simplify the process of elections and save cost but on the other hand, it is an erosion of federalism, a marginalization of regional voices, and the complexities of logistics involved. If we compare and analyze the arguments in favor of and against One Nation, One Election (ONOE), one can understand that, under the colours of saving costs and maintaining stability, it poses a threat to India’s democracy. It might disturb the political equilibrium, even risking the federal structure, and can even go on to become a tool to develop a more centralized, monarchical form of governance which is harmful for democracy of India.