"One Nation, One Election" Proposal Stirs Federalism Debate, Deepens Political Fault Lines

New Delhi, Delhi – The discourse around the ambitious ‘One Nation, One Election’ (ONOE) proposal has significantly intensified, pushing India's political fault lines into sharp relief.

With the Union Government reaffirming its commitment to the idea of simultaneous elections for the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies, a chorus of opposition parties, legal luminaries, and civil society groups has vociferously challenged its feasibility, constitutional implications, and potential to centralise power at the expense of India's robust federal structure.

The debate has moved beyond mere theoretical discussions, with a high-level committee, led by former President Ram Nath Kovind, actively consulting stakeholders and preparing its report.

The very premise of the proposal – to reduce electoral expenditure, ensure policy continuity, and curb 'poll fatigue' – is now being weighed against fundamental democratic principles, raising questions about the future of India's multi-party federal democracy.

Key points

* The 'One Nation, One Election' proposal aims to synchronise Lok Sabha and State Assembly polls across India.

* Opposition parties and regional outfits fear it will dilute federalism, overshadow state-specific issues, and disadvantage smaller parties.

* Constitutional experts highlight the need for extensive amendments, potentially altering the basic structure of the Constitution.

* Significant logistical and operational challenges face the Election Commission of India, including voter rolls, EVMs, and security deployment.

* Proponents argue for benefits such as reduced expenditure, improved governance, and a greater focus on development over electioneering.

The concept of ONOE, while seemingly straightforward in its objective of streamlining the electoral process, unravels into a complex web of constitutional hurdles, political ramifications, and administrative challenges.

Proponents, primarily from the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), argue that the current cycle of frequent elections is a drain on public resources, distracts governments from policy implementation due to the Model Code of Conduct, and creates a perpetual election mode that hampers development.

They often cite estimates suggesting that holding separate elections costs thousands of crores of rupees, besides the unquantifiable costs of administrative and security personnel deployment.

However, this narrative is meeting stiff resistance. "This move threatens the very fabric of India's federal structure and could silence regional voices and issues crucial to our diverse populace," stated Smt.

Renuka Das, a Senior Leader of the Trinamool Congress.

Speaking to Toofan Express News, she added, "Each state has its unique political landscape, local concerns, and regional aspirations.

Clubbing elections will inevitably nationalise every single poll, forcing voters to choose based on national narratives rather than local performance and priorities."

Constitutional scholars have pointed out the formidable legal gauntlet that the ONOE proposal must run. "Implementing 'One Nation, One Election' would necessitate extensive amendments to multiple articles of the Constitution, potentially altering the basic structure doctrine laid down by the Supreme Court," observed Dr.

Vikramjeet Singh, Professor of Constitutional Law at the National Law School, Delhi.

He elaborated, "Amendments would be required for Articles 83 (duration of Parliament), 85 (dissolution of Lok Sabha), 172 (duration of State Legislatures), 174 (dissolution of State Legislatures), and 356 (President's Rule), among others.

This isn't merely procedural; it strikes at the heart of parliamentary democracy where a government serves at the pleasure of the elected house."

Regional parties, in particular, view the proposal with deep suspicion.

Shri Anand Murthy, General Secretary of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), articulated this concern, saying, "State-specific issues crucial for our development and the unique cultural identity of our people will be overshadowed by national narratives if elections are clubbed.

This will inevitably favour larger national parties with vast resources and media reach, marginalising regional political forces who represent the true diversity of India." His concerns resonate with numerous regional outfits who fear a diminished role in a nationalised electoral battle.

From the government's perspective, the intent is purely one of efficiency and progress. "The goal is to ensure stability, reduce electoral expenditure that burdens the exchequer, and allow governments to focus on development without constant election cycles," asserted Shri Rajesh Verma, National Spokesperson for the Bharatiya Janata Party. "The high-level committee is studying all aspects, including constitutional feasibility and logistical challenges, to arrive at a consensus-based solution that benefits all citizens and strengthens our democracy.

This is not about centralising power but optimising governance for a rapidly developing India."

Official data from the Election Commission of India (ECI) points to the escalating costs of elections.

While specific direct costs for a single Lok Sabha election run into thousands of crores, the indirect costs for state police, central forces, administrative staff, and political campaigning are many times higher.

The Law Commission of India, in its 2018 draft report on simultaneous elections, acknowledged that a minimum of five constitutional amendments would be needed, along with ratification by at least half of the states.

It also highlighted the logistical nightmare of procuring an unprecedented number of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) and Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) units, which would entail massive upfront costs.

Background

India historically conducted simultaneous elections for the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies from 1952 to 1967.

This practice was disrupted due to early dissolutions of some State Assemblies and the Lok Sabha itself, leading to staggered election cycles.

The idea of reverting to simultaneous polls has periodically resurfaced, primarily championed by the BJP and its ideological affiliates.

The Law Commission of India examined the issue in 1999 and again in 2018, both times suggesting that while desirable, it would require significant constitutional and legal changes, along with broad political consensus.

The present government formed a high-level committee under former President Ram Nath Kovind in September 2023 to thoroughly examine the feasibility and implications of ONOE, giving the proposal renewed impetus and a formal governmental push.

What it means

The implementation of ONOE could fundamentally alter India's political landscape.

It could potentially lead to a greater focus on national issues during all elections, possibly at the expense of state-specific concerns.

This might benefit larger national parties and impact the electoral fortunes of regional outfits, which thrive on local identity and issues.

For voters, it could simplify the electoral calendar but might also dilute their ability to hold state and central governments accountable separately.

Logistically, the Election Commission would face an unprecedented challenge in managing a single, massive poll, requiring monumental efforts in voter registration, EVM procurement, and deployment of personnel and security forces.

Furthermore, it raises questions about the stability of governments; if a state assembly is dissolved prematurely, what mechanism would be in place without triggering a separate election?

The Law Commission previously suggested solutions like a no-confidence motion followed by a constructive vote of confidence, or President's Rule for a fixed term, all of which carry their own democratic implications.

Reactions

The reactions to the ONOE proposal have been sharply divided along political lines.

The ruling BJP and its allies largely support the initiative, framing it as a necessary reform for efficient governance and economic development.

They argue that it will reduce corruption and the influence of 'black money' in elections.

Conversely, almost all major opposition parties, including the Indian National Congress, Trinamool Congress, Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, Aam Aadmi Party, and the Left parties, have expressed strong reservations.

They argue that it is an attack on federalism, a move to undermine regional parties, and a fundamental assault on the spirit of the Constitution.

Civil society groups and legal experts are also split, with some seeing merit in the administrative efficiency argument, while a larger number express deep concerns over the democratic and constitutional implications.

The ECI, while acknowledging the logistical challenges, has indicated that it is capable of conducting simultaneous polls if the necessary legal framework and resources are provided.

What happens next

The immediate next step will be the submission of the high-level committee's report, led by former President Ram Nath Kovind.

This report is expected to outline the detailed recommendations, including proposed constitutional amendments and the roadmap for implementation.

Following this, the government might introduce a Bill in Parliament.

Given the requirement for constitutional amendments, securing a two-thirds majority in both Houses of Parliament and ratification by at least half of the state legislatures would be essential.

This process is arduous and requires significant political consensus, which currently appears elusive.

The debate is likely to intensify further in the coming months, possibly becoming a major electoral issue leading up to the next general elections.

The legal challenges, particularly regarding the 'basic structure' doctrine, are almost guaranteed to reach the Supreme Court, making the path to 'One Nation, One Election' a long and constitutionally complex one.