By Vansh Vijay Aggarwal

Introduction:

‘One Nation, One Election’ (ONOE) has become a hotly debated issue of contemporary Indian politics and governance and the proponents of this idea have assumed that this will be a revolution in the functioning of public policies while the opponents are quite wary of the consequences of this policy on the structure of India’s political federalism and its democratic plurality. At its core, the policy pits the efficiency of governance against the sacrosanct fabric of democracy, making the controversy as layered as the nation itself. This article evaluates the economic and administrative rationalities presented in its favour against the threats they pose to federalism, the nature of electoral competition, and the democratic principle of proportional representation. Through an exploration of international analogies, historical contexts, and constitutional interpretations, the paper seeks to determine whether ONOE is a pragmatic solution or a Pandora’s box of democratic perils.

Economic rationale behind One Nation, One Election:

‘One Nation, One Election’ is an appealing economic proposition for India, especially in the backdrop of the ever-increasing electoral expenditure steadily climbing in recent years, much like an avalanche gathering speed as it rolls down a mountain. For instance, the 2024 Lok Sabha elections are estimated to have cost ₹1.35 lakh crore. This figure is almost double the expenditure incurred in the 2019 general elections, which were valued at ₹55,000-₹60,000 crore. It has been well-established that there is a rise in administrative expenses, elaborate security measures, and political campaign expenditures. These include the acquisition of EVMs, identification procedures, conveyance of polling materials, and training of election staff. Virtually all these logistical requirements cost the Election Commission of India (ECI) over ₹4,500 crores per major election, making staggered elections financially draining in the long run. Indirect costs, though less visible, are equally significant. In such a scenario, India could significantly reduce these costs by consolidating elections, cutting both direct and indirect expenses, much like pruning excess branches to let the tree thrive.

The Model Code of Conduct (MCC), which is enforced during election periods, acts like a brake on government activities, halting the announcement and execution of new projects, thus influencing economic activity and governance. Large sectors that depend on government business, like construction and other public utility projects, slow down as well, contributing to lower GDP growth rates. These issues could be alleviated with simultaneous elections, as they would reduce the frequency of MCC enforcement and allow for continuous governance. This reduction in governance disruption is not just a theoretical advantage; the NITI Aayog and the Law Commission of India have recently recommended that simultaneous elections could potentially add up to 1.5 percentage points to India’s GDP per year. This is because the government machinery would be less consumed by election-related activities, leaving more room for policy implementation, which in turn could boost investor confidence and foster a more stable economy. Presently, political leaders and bureaucrats are often pulled away from administration, their attention diverted by the constant cycle of campaigns. This perpetual election season leads to short-term, vote-seeking policy decisions rather than a focus on long-term development planning. By aligning the elections for both central and state leaders, it would allow leaders to devote more time to governance, resulting in more efficient administration and better service delivery. The more politically stable a nation is, the more conducive the business environment becomes, encouraging investment.

Impact on India’s multi-party system:

Historically, India’s electoral diversity has been its strength, with regional and state-specific parties playing a crucial role in representing local interests and minority voices. However, simultaneous elections could elevate national narratives over regional concerns, consolidating political power around major national parties, like how the tide gradually pulls everything toward the shore. This shift may result in a political structure resembling the U.S. two-party system, where broader national issues overshadow regional interests. Unlike the U.S., where the federal structure accommodates two dominant parties, India’s polity is more complex, with linguistic, cultural, and regional distinctions influencing political preferences. Nationalized politics may also cause the erosion of checks and balances in a multi-party system. Regional parties have been the bedrock of coalition governments and a counterpoint to any potential hegemony by one party at the national level. The centralization of power could weaken political competition and oversight, leading to a weakening of democratic accountability if regional parties lose their significance. Without this crucial balance, the political system could drift aimlessly, much like a ship without a compass, lacking direction and stability.

One of the major worries is that regional parties would be relegated to the fringes. Many regional parties flourish in state-level elections, where issues of local concern dominate the political discourse. For example, parties like the Trinamool Congress in West Bengal, the DMK in Tamil Nadu, and the Telangana Rashtra Samithi (now BRS) in Telangana have built their platforms around regional identity, local development issues, and cultural representation. Localized election narratives may get drowned out by simultaneous elections that focus on national issues, much like a single loud voice drowning out a quiet chorus. As such, regional parties may be unable to maintain their prominence and relevance. Regional parties are often more attuned to local issues, such as water disputes, agricultural concerns, or regional employment challenges, which may not resonate at the national level. If these issues are sidelined in favour of broader national narratives during simultaneous elections, local governance, and accountability could suffer. Voter disillusionment and a sense of alienation among different regional and minority groups could destabilize the democratic fabric. Besides, the federal character of India, as inculcated in the Constitution, is a pluralistic political system wherein multiple voices shape the decision-making process. The possibility of simultaneous elections might work against this pluralism because it would create a top-down political environment wherein national leaders and policies dominate and do not leave much space for regional diversity.

Possibility of Misuse by the Ruling Party:

The consolidation of the electoral framework provides the incumbent government with means to direct the scheduling and conduct of elections in such a way that promotes the interest of the government, leading to the diminution of the democratic processes integrity and the reduced capability of opposition parties to competently contest the incumbent regime. It’s like giving the referee full control over when the game is played and under what conditions, tilting the field in favour of one team. A major issue associated with concurrent elections is the likelihood of delaying the elections in certain areas based on the argument of disturbances including insurgencies, natural calamities, or issues with law and order. For example, the Jammu and Kashmir elections were delayed due to security concerns that raised questions about the independence of such decisions. With simultaneous elections, the stakes are higher because postponing elections in one state or region could send the entire national electoral process into disarray.

A more crucial matter is the erosion of democratic accountability. The concurrent nature of elections, whereby all elections are compressed into a single event, may interfere with the ability of opposition parties to have strong campaigns and challenge the government at multiple levels—national, state, and local. Under a staggered system of elections, opposition parties are allowed to focus on state-specific issues and maintain governmental accountability at the different levels. In a simultaneous electoral system, the aggregation of campaign activities directed towards a singular event may overshadow minor opposition parties, consequently constraining their capacity to offer alternative perspectives or rigorously evaluate the government’s performance. Moreover, the complexities of the logistics of managing simultaneous elections across an area as vast and as diverse as India can lead to bureaucratic lapses, making it even more susceptible to manipulation. These anomalies can include irregularities in voter roll management, mismanagement of polling stations, or intentional delays in declarations of results in sensitive political regions, all of which can be used by the ruling party to strengthen its grasp.

Impact on Voter Behaviour and Election Outcomes:

As it stands, India’s staggered electoral structure allows voters to assess various levels of government separately, leading to voting behaviours that are more attuned to regional priorities. However, a parallel election scenario would likely greatly alter this equation, whereby national issues and central leadership would seem to dominate the discourse, likely undermining regional concerns and local governance, much like a rising tide that gradually covers up the small boats tethered to the shore. For example, in the 2019 Lok Sabha polls, national security and leadership were important issues that led to a strong mandate for the Bharatiya Janata Party. This said, in subsequent state elections, regional political entities, such as the Aam Aadmi Party in Delhi and the Trinamool Congress in West Bengal, won handsomely since voters focused on issues related to local governance such as public services, healthcare, and infrastructure. Simultaneous elections might mute these differences, making voters focus more on the overall national concerns rather than the local concerns, which could undermine the states’ accountability of their governments, like a chorus of voices being drowned out by a loudspeaker.

Another significant risk is the ‘presidentialization’ of Indian elections, where the focus shifts predominantly to central leadership rather than local representatives. In a simultaneous election setup, national leaders would likely dominate campaigns, with party narratives revolving around the Prime Minister or other central figures. This could mirror systems like the U.S., where elections revolve around a few key personalities rather than a broader spectrum of candidates. Such a trend in India would benefit the bigger national parties with better-known national leadership, while the role of the regional leader and that of local candidates would take a hit. The electorate would likely get carried away with the rhetoric, the policies, or the glamour of a national leader, much like a crowd swept up by the appeal of a star performer, with the backstage crew—the regional candidates—being overlooked. The chances are that simultaneous elections might further fortify the national parties with less space for new voices or regional players to emerge. National parties have to start at the grassroots and then acquire importance at the national level. For instance, Shiv Sena and the Telugu Desam Party (TDP), among others, began as regional forces before assuming national importance.

Conclusion:

The “One Nation, One Election” proposal combining the Lok Sabha and state assembly elections, promises to reduce electoral costs, eliminate policy gridlocks caused by frequent elections, and foster a more efficient bureaucracy. However, this ambitious proposal raises critical concerns regarding its impact on India’s federal structure, regional representation, and democratic pluralism. The challenge lies in finding a delicate balance between the goal of streamlined governance and the need to preserve the diversity and local dynamics that form the core of India’s democratic framework. The provisions outlined in the ONOE bill, which proposes amendments to Articles 83, 85, 172, and 174, reflect the government’s commitment to reform. However, these constitutional changes require the support of both Houses of Parliament and a collaborative approach involving state governments, political parties, and civil society. These discussions must be thorough, ensuring that the interests of all stakeholders are addressed and that the proposal does not inadvertently erode the federal ethos of India. A cautious and gradual implementation, starting with pilot projects in select states, would help manage potential risks, allowing for refinements and adjustments before a nationwide rollout. Provisions for mid-term dissolution and safeguards against democratic deficits should also be built in, along with checks and balances to protect federalism and regionalism. With the right measures in place, ONOE has the potential to catalyze a more efficient and cohesive governance structure, while preserving the essence of India’s democratic diversity.

Democracy is not about the quantity of elections, but the quality of representation!

Author’s Bio:

Vansh Vijay Aggarwal is a B.A. LL.B. student at Jindal Global Law School and a columnist at CNES.

Image Source: ECI is ready to implement ‘One Nation, One Election’, says CEC Sunil Arora – Way2Barak