One Nation, One Election Push Sparks Fierce Federalism Debate Across India

New Delhi, May 10, 2024.

The Narendra Modi-led Union government's assertive revival of the 'One Nation, One Election' (ONOE) proposal has plunged the nation into a high-stakes constitutional and political debate, drawing intense pushback from a broad spectrum of opposition parties and legal luminaries.

With signals from the government suggesting an accelerated timeline, concerns are mounting over the potential erosion of India's federal framework and the practical implications for its vast and diverse electorate.

Key points

* The Union government has reiterated its commitment to the simultaneous elections proposal, citing efficiency and economic benefits.

* Major opposition parties, including the Congress, TMC, and DMK, have voiced strong constitutional objections, fearing a dilution of states' autonomy.

* Constitutional experts and former election officials warn of significant logistical hurdles and potential undermining of regional representation.

* A high-level committee, tasked with examining the feasibility of ONOE, is expected to submit its report soon, setting the stage for potential legislative action.

* Critics argue the move could fundamentally alter India's democratic structure, favouring national narratives over local issues.

The government's argument for ONOE rests primarily on the promise of reducing the enormous financial burden of frequent elections and enabling a sustained focus on governance and development without interruption from continuous campaigning.

Officials within the ruling dispensation suggest that holding Lok Sabha and State Assembly elections concurrently would save the exchequer thousands of crores, streamline administrative efforts, and prevent the imposition of the Model Code of Conduct multiple times a year, which often stalls policy implementation.

However, the proposal has met with a wall of resistance from the opposition.

A senior Congress party leader, speaking on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of ongoing internal deliberations, stated, "This isn't about efficiency; it's about centralisation of power.

Forcing simultaneous elections means that regional issues will be overshadowed by national narratives.

It will effectively make state elections a referendum on the national government, fundamentally undermining the federal character of our Constitution."

Dr.

Kavita Sharma, a prominent leader of the Trinamool Congress, articulated concerns specific to regional parties. "Our strength lies in our connection to local issues, local needs.

When you club state elections with national elections, the focus inevitably shifts.

This proposal implicitly devalues the autonomy of state legislatures and their mandate.

We view this as a direct assault on the spirit of cooperative federalism."

Constitutional experts have also weighed in, highlighting the complex legal and practical challenges.

Dr.

Arvind Kumar, Professor of Constitutional Law at Jawaharlal Nehru University, pointed out, "Implementing ONOE would necessitate significant amendments to at least five Articles of the Constitution, including Articles 83, 85, 172, 174, and 356.

These amendments would alter the fixed terms of Lok Sabha and state assemblies, potentially requiring premature dissolution of elected bodies – a move fraught with constitutional difficulties and democratic legitimacy questions." He added, "The idea of synchronisation, while appealing in theory, overlooks the political realities of no-confidence motions and coalition breakdowns that are integral to a parliamentary democracy."

Furthermore, the logistical enormity of ONOE is a major concern.

Mr.

Sunil Gupta, former Additional Secretary at the Election Commission of India, outlined the operational challenges. "We would need a significantly larger number of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) and Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) units, which would entail massive procurement costs and storage complexities.

Deploying hundreds of thousands of additional security personnel concurrently across the entire nation, especially in diverse geographical terrains, would be an unprecedented logistical feat, potentially stretching our resources thin." He estimated that the total number of EVMs and VVPATs required could potentially double or triple, alongside the need for hundreds of thousands of extra polling staff.

Data from past elections indicates that the cost of holding elections has been increasing.

The 2014 Lok Sabha elections cost approximately ₹3,870 crore, while the 2019 Lok Sabha elections cost around ₹6,000 crore.

State assembly elections run into hundreds of crores each.

The government cites these figures as justification for ONOE, arguing the cumulative expenditure is unsustainable.

However, critics retort that democracy's cost is a small price for its vibrancy and proper functioning.

Background

The concept of simultaneous elections is not new to India.

From 1952 to 1967, Lok Sabha and state assembly elections were largely held concurrently.

However, this practice was disrupted by premature dissolutions of some state assemblies and the Lok Sabha itself, leading to a staggered electoral cycle.

The idea was first formally revisited by the Law Commission in its 1999 report, suggesting ways to restore synchronicity.

More recently, the Law Commission's 2018 draft report also endorsed ONOE, proposing various methods for its implementation, including a common electoral roll and a two-phase simultaneous election process.

The current government, under Prime Minister Modi, has been a vocal proponent of ONOE since coming to power in 2014, consistently advocating for its benefits in various forums.

A high-level committee, headed by former President Ram Nath Kovind, was constituted last year to comprehensively examine the issue, gathering inputs from political parties, legal experts, and election officials.

Its forthcoming report is seen as a pivotal document in shaping the future discourse on ONOE.

What it means

Should the 'One Nation, One Election' proposal gain traction and be implemented, it would herald a paradigm shift in Indian politics.

The most significant implication is a potential recalibration of India's federal power dynamics, possibly consolidating more power at the Centre and diminishing the independent political space of state-level parties.

The electoral discourse could become increasingly nationalised, with regional grievances and unique state-specific challenges potentially getting subsumed under broader national narratives.

This could fundamentally alter voter behaviour, potentially leading to a 'coattail effect' where voters, influenced by their choice for the national government, might cast similar votes for state assemblies, irrespective of local candidates or issues.

For political parties, it would necessitate a complete overhaul of campaign strategies, resource allocation, and alliance formations, demanding a more integrated national-state approach.

It also raises questions about accountability, as the gap between elections might make governments less responsive to immediate public sentiment.

Reactions

The proposal has generated a diverse array of reactions.

Beyond the united front of major opposition parties against it, several regional parties are expressing strong reservations, fearing that their distinct identities and platforms would be diluted.

Parties like the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) in Tamil Nadu and the Telangana Rashtra Samithi (BRS) have consistently opposed the idea, viewing it as an encroachment on states' rights.

Civil society organisations and advocacy groups have also voiced concerns about the democratic health of the nation, emphasising the importance of regular elections as a mechanism for holding elected representatives accountable.

They argue that frequent elections, while costly, are essential for a robust democracy, allowing for continuous public engagement and course correction.

The business community, on the other hand, has shown a mixed reaction, with some sections welcoming the prospect of political stability and reduced policy uncertainty, while others express apprehension about the concentration of power and its potential impact on diverse regional economic needs.

International observers and democratic watchdogs are keenly following the debate, noting its implications for the world's largest democracy.

What happens next

The immediate future hinges on the submission of the high-level committee's report to the President.

Once submitted, the government is likely to bring the findings into the public domain, potentially initiating a nationwide debate.

Any legislative action to implement ONOE would undoubtedly require extensive parliamentary deliberations, where the ruling alliance would need to garner sufficient support for potential constitutional amendments.

Given the federal implications, consultations with state governments would also be critical, although the precise mechanism for such consultations remains unclear.

Should the proposal clear the legislative hurdles, it would then face inevitable legal challenges in the Supreme Court, with petitions likely to be filed by opposition parties and civil society groups contesting its constitutional validity, particularly regarding the 'basic structure' doctrine.

The roadmap for actual implementation, including the phased synchronisation of electoral cycles, would be a monumental undertaking, stretching over several years and involving unprecedented cooperation between the Union government, the Election Commission, and state administrations.

The journey towards 'One Nation, One Election', if pursued, promises to be one of the most defining political and constitutional sagas in recent Indian history.