One Nation, One Election: Federalism's Litmus Test Amidst Growing Political Divide

Delhi, 15 March – India is grappling with one of its most contentious electoral reform proposals in decades as the Union government accelerates its push for 'One Nation, One Election' (ONOE), a system advocating for simultaneous polls for the Lok Sabha and all state assemblies.

This ambitious initiative, touted by its proponents as a panacea for India's perpetual election cycle, has ignited a fierce political and constitutional debate, with opposition parties and legal luminaries raising profound concerns about its implications for the nation’s federal structure, democratic vitality, and the autonomy of regional voices.

The discourse reveals a widening chasm between the ruling dispensation's vision for administrative efficiency and the opposition's fears of centralisation and the dilution of state-level democracy.

Key points

* The Union government argues ONOE will save significant public expenditure, enhance administrative efficiency, and allow for uninterrupted governance.

* Opposition parties contend the proposal undermines India's federalism, disadvantages regional parties, and risks nationalising state elections, thereby diminishing local issues.

* Legal and constitutional experts highlight the formidable array of amendments required across multiple articles of the Constitution, necessitating broad political consensus and state ratification.

* A high-level committee, led by former President Ram Nath Kovind, is currently consulting stakeholders and is expected to submit its recommendations soon, setting the stage for potential legislative action.

* The initiative faces significant logistical challenges, including managing potential hung assemblies or no-confidence motions, which could disrupt the synchronous election cycle.

The core argument advanced by the government centers on the enormous financial cost and administrative burden of holding separate elections almost every year. "Our nation is almost perpetually in election mode.

This continuous cycle drains resources – human, financial, and administrative – that could otherwise be deployed for development," stated Union Home Minister Amit Shah recently at a public forum in Bengaluru, reiterating the government's long-standing position.

He added, "One Nation, One Election is not merely an electoral reform; it is a step towards greater efficiency, faster decision-making, and accelerated national progress.

It will free up our security forces, reduce the burden on public servants, and allow elected representatives to focus on governance." The Election Commission of India (ECI) has previously indicated that holding all elections simultaneously could lead to a substantial one-time investment in electronic voting machines (EVMs) and VVPATs, but potentially significant savings in recurring expenditure.

Estimates from the Law Commission's 2018 report suggested an initial cost of ₹4,500 crores for additional EVMs and VVPATs alone.

However, the proposal has drawn immediate and sharp repudiation from a spectrum of opposition parties.

Congress leader P.

Chidambaram, speaking in Chennai, dismissed the idea as "constitutionally fraught and democratically dangerous." He argued, "The BJP's real intent is to centralise power and diminish regional parties.

By clubbing all elections, they hope to leverage national issues and the popularity of a single leader to sweep state elections, thereby rendering state-specific concerns irrelevant." Similar sentiments were echoed by Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) chief and Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K.

Stalin, who termed ONOE an "assault on federalism" and a "subversion of democracy." "India's strength lies in its diversity, and our electoral cycles reflect that.

To force a single election cycle upon all states is to ignore their unique political dynamics and cultural nuances," Stalin stated from Coimbatore.

Mamata Banerjee, Chief Minister of West Bengal and Trinamool Congress (TMC) supremo, has called the initiative a "ploy to convert a multi-party democracy into a single-party rule."

Legal experts are equally divided, but many caution against rushing such a monumental change.

Dr.

Alok Kumar, a constitutional law expert and former Dean of the Faculty of Law at Delhi University, highlighted the immense legal hurdles. "Implementing 'One Nation, One Election' would necessitate amendments to at least five Articles of the Constitution – Articles 83 (duration of Houses of Parliament), 85 (prorogation and dissolution of Parliament), 172 (duration of State Legislatures), 174 (prorogation and dissolution of State Legislatures), and 356 (President's Rule).

Beyond that, the Representation of the People Act, 1951, would also require significant modifications," Dr.

Kumar explained from his chambers in Delhi. "The most challenging aspect is how to address premature dissolutions of assemblies or governments losing no-confidence motions.

Will President's Rule become the norm until the next synchronous election?

This has serious implications for democratic accountability and elected representation." He further pointed out that such amendments would require not only a two-thirds majority in both Houses of Parliament but also ratification by at least half of the state legislative assemblies, a political tightrope walk given the current opposition.

Political analyst and commentator, Professor Rakesh Joshi of Jawaharlal Nehru University, noted the potential impact on voter behaviour. "Currently, voters often differentiate between national and state issues when casting their ballots.

With simultaneous elections, there's a significant risk that national narratives and the popularity of a national leader could overshadow local issues, thus disadvantaging regional parties who typically focus on state-specific concerns," he observed. "This could fundamentally alter the nature of Indian democracy, potentially leading to a more centralised political system."

The high-level committee, established in September 2023 under the chairmanship of former President Ram Nath Kovind, has been actively engaged in consultations with political parties, legal experts, and election officials.

Sources close to the committee suggest that its interim findings underscore the constitutional complexities and the necessity for a robust legal framework to ensure democratic principles are upheld.

The committee's report is widely anticipated as the next critical juncture in this policy debate.

Background

The concept of simultaneous elections is not new to India.

In fact, India held simultaneous elections for the Lok Sabha and state assemblies in 1952, 1957, 1962, and 1967.

This cycle was disrupted primarily due to the premature dissolution of some state assemblies and the Lok Sabha in 1971.

Since then, the electoral calendar has become staggered, leading to a near-constant cycle of elections.

The idea of reverting to simultaneous polls has been intermittently discussed by various bodies.

The Law Commission of India, in its 170th Report (1999), recommended holding simultaneous elections to ensure stability.

More recently, in 2018, its 255th Report extensively examined the feasibility of simultaneous elections, proposing a two-phase approach for synchronisation.

NITI Aayog, the government's premier think tank, also published a working paper in 2018 advocating for ONOE, emphasising the benefits of reduced expenditure and improved governance.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi has been a vocal proponent of ONOE since assuming office in 2014, consistently highlighting it as a crucial electoral reform.

The BJP's 2019 Lok Sabha election manifesto also included a commitment to explore the implementation of simultaneous elections.

This sustained advocacy has propelled the issue to the forefront of the national political agenda, culminating in the formation of the high-level committee.

The current government's renewed push is seen by many as a strategic move to streamline the electoral process and potentially consolidate political gains by leveraging national sentiment.

What it means

If implemented, 'One Nation, One Election' would represent a monumental shift in India's democratic landscape.

For proponents, it promises a less fragmented political environment, allowing governments to focus on policy implementation rather than being perennially bogged down by election campaigning.

It could lead to more stable governments and potentially a reduction in populist announcements aimed at immediate electoral gains.

However, critics foresee a dilution of India's unique federal character.

State elections, currently decided on local issues and the performance of regional leaders, might become referendums on national leaders and parties.

This could significantly weaken regional parties, which often play a crucial role in representing diverse local interests and acting as checks and balances against centralisation.

The financial savings, while attractive, must be weighed against the potential cost to democratic representation and the spirit of federalism.

Furthermore, the logistical challenge of managing potential political instability (e.g., a hung assembly or a government losing confidence) within a synchronous cycle without resorting to extended periods of President's Rule remains a profound concern, potentially impacting the very fabric of representative democracy.

Reactions

The proposal continues to elicit a polarised response across the political spectrum.

The **Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)** and its allies staunchly support ONOE, framing it as a necessary reform for 'New India'. "This is about putting the nation first, above electoral politics," remarked a senior BJP spokesperson in Delhi.

The **Indian National Congress**, along with key regional players like the **DMK**, **TMC**, **Shiv Sena (Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray)**, and the **Samajwadi Party**, remains vehemently opposed.

Rahul Gandhi, a prominent Congress leader, has repeatedly called it an "attack on the Union of States." The **Communist Party of India (Marxist)** has also strongly condemned the idea, arguing it would lead to a "majoritarian assault on constitutionalism."

Among the legal fraternity, opinions vary.

While some constitutional experts support the move for its potential benefits to governance stability, many others, including former Supreme Court and High Court judges, have expressed reservations, primarily concerning the constitutional amendments required and the potential for undemocratic outcomes in cases of premature government collapses. "The beauty of Indian democracy lies in its dynamic political landscape.

We must be cautious not to sacrifice this dynamism at the altar of perceived efficiency," stated Justice (Retd.) R.K.

Menon, a former judge of the Karnataka High Court, speaking from Bengaluru.

Civil society organisations and activist groups have also voiced concerns about the curtailment of public discourse and the potential for a single electoral narrative to dominate, making it harder for diverse issues and smaller parties to gain traction.

What happens next

The immediate next step will be the submission of the high-level committee's report to the President.

Should the report recommend the feasibility of ONOE, the Union government is expected to table legislation in Parliament.

This would likely involve a series of constitutional amendment bills, each requiring a two-thirds majority in both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha, followed by ratification by at least 50% of the state assemblies.

Given the political fragmentation and the strong opposition, particularly from states not ruled by the BJP, securing the necessary state ratifications presents a significant challenge.

Any legislative move would almost certainly be challenged in the Supreme Court, opening up another prolonged legal battle over the interpretation of basic structure doctrine and federal principles.

While the government appears keen on progressing with the initiative, the consensus-building required, both politically and legally, means that 'One Nation, One Election' is unlikely to be implemented before the 2029 general elections, and even its long-term feasibility remains a subject of intense debate and political negotiation.

The coming months will be crucial in determining whether this ambitious reform can bridge the deep political divisions it has exposed or simply deepen them further.