'One Nation, One Election' Pushback Mounts: States, Opposition Cite Federalism Erosion

New Delhi, October 26: A politically charged debate over the Centre’s renewed thrust for ‘One Nation, One Election’ intensified across India this week, with numerous opposition parties and several state governments launching a concerted pushback, arguing that the ambitious proposal threatens to undermine India’s delicate federal balance and dilute regional voices in democratic processes.

The concept, which seeks to synchronise elections to the Lok Sabha and all state assemblies, has been a long-standing aspiration of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), gaining fresh momentum with the formation of a high-level committee headed by former President Ram Nath Kovind. However, the move has ignited a fiery debate, with critics decrying it as a potential tool for centralisation of power and an assault on India's diverse electoral landscape.

Key points

• Opposition parties across the spectrum have united in vocalizing concerns over federalism, state autonomy, and the practical challenges of implementation.

• State governments, particularly those not aligned with the ruling dispensation, expressed deep apprehension about the potential for resource allocation biases and the overshadowing of local issues.

• Legal and constitutional experts have highlighted the extensive amendments required across several articles of the Constitution, posing significant legislative hurdles.

• The Election Commission of India, while acknowledging logistical feasibility with sufficient resources, has stressed the imperative of broad political consensus and necessary constitutional changes.

• Proponents argue the proposal promises substantial cost savings, enhanced administrative efficiency, and a reduction in governance disruptions caused by perpetual election cycles.

The renewed push for simultaneous polls comes at a critical juncture, with the Kovind-led committee actively consulting various stakeholders, including political parties, election officials, and legal experts. The committee's mandate is to examine the feasibility and mechanisms for holding synchronous elections, including potential constitutional amendments and logistical requirements.

Advocates for ‘One Nation, One Election’ primarily cite economic efficiency and administrative convenience. The Election Commission of India frequently deploys hundreds of thousands of personnel and security forces for each election cycle. For instance, the 2019 Lok Sabha elections alone cost the exchequer over ₹6,000 crore, with state assembly polls adding significantly to this burden. Proponents argue that combining these elections would drastically cut down expenditure, streamline resource deployment, and ensure that governments can focus on governance rather than being in a constant state of election preparedness.

“The economic and administrative benefits are undeniable,” argued Dr. Arindam Mitra, Director of the Centre for Public Policy Studies, in an interview with Toofan Express. “The recurring costs of elections, the imposition of the Model Code of Conduct, and the diversion of administrative personnel are significant drains on national resources. A consolidated election cycle offers a viable solution to these perennial issues, fostering greater policy continuity.”

However, this narrative is vehemently challenged by a broad coalition of opposition parties and state governments. Their concerns are primarily anchored in the principles of federalism and the potential dilution of regional political narratives.

“This is a direct assault on the spirit of federalism enshrined in our Constitution,” stated Mallikarjun Kharge, President of the Indian National Congress, addressing a press conference in Delhi. “It’s a move designed to centralise power, diminish the unique electoral mandates of states, and reduce regional parties to mere footnotes. Our states have distinct needs, distinct issues, and distinct political dynamics that cannot be subsumed under a national agenda.”

Echoing this sentiment, M.K. Stalin, Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, in a statement released from Chennai, termed the proposal “undemocratic and dangerous for India’s diverse political landscape.” He added, “How can a state election be fought on national issues, or a national election overshadow critical local concerns? This will lead to a one-size-fits-all approach that ignores our distinct needs and the specific challenges faced by our people. Our party will vehemently oppose any such move that curtails the autonomy of states.”

The logistical challenges, too, are formidable. The Election Commission would require an unprecedented number of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) and VVPATs, and a massive scale-up of trained personnel. Currently, the ECI manages around 10.5 lakh polling stations. Simultaneous elections would demand a significant increase in both equipment and human resources, raising questions about manufacturing capacities and training capabilities.

Furthermore, legal and constitutional experts point to the immense legislative overhaul required. “Implementing ‘One Nation, One Election’ would necessitate profound amendments to several articles of the Constitution, including Articles 83 (duration of Houses of Parliament), 85 (sessions of Parliament, prorogation and dissolution), 172 (duration of State Legislatures), 174 (sessions of State Legislature, prorogation and dissolution), and 356 (provisions in case of failure of constitutional machinery in a State),” cautioned Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, a Senior Advocate and constitutional law expert, speaking from his chambers. “Such fundamental changes require broad political consensus, extending beyond a simple parliamentary majority, and some amendments might even require ratification by at least half of the state legislative assemblies.”

Several states, including Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and West Bengal, have officially communicated their opposition to the Centre, citing concerns about regional representation and the potential for a ‘wave election’ effect where national issues might unfairly influence state outcomes, suppressing local concerns and the performance of regional parties.

Background

The idea of simultaneous elections is not new to India. Until 1967, Lok Sabha and state assembly elections were largely held concurrently. However, political instability, defections, and subsequent dissolutions of assemblies led to the breakdown of this cycle. The Law Commission, in its 170th report in 1999 and again in a 2018 working paper, explored the feasibility of synchronised polls. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has repeatedly advocated for the concept since 2014, emphasising its potential to save resources and ensure continuous focus on development.

In September, the government established an eight-member high-level committee under the chairmanship of former President Ram Nath Kovind to examine and make recommendations on the matter, signaling a serious intent to pursue the reform. This committee includes prominent figures like Union Home Minister Amit Shah and former Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha, Ghulam Nabi Azad.

What it means

Should ‘One Nation, One Election’ be successfully implemented, it would herald a paradigm shift in Indian politics. For federalism, it implies a significant centralisation of electoral power and potentially weakens the bargaining power of states on certain issues. For voters, it could simplify the electoral process but also risk homogenising political discourse, with national issues dominating local debates. Regional parties, a vibrant cornerstone of India’s democracy, fear being dwarfed by national narratives and larger national parties.

Strategically, political parties would need to devise new campaign approaches, potentially requiring stronger alliances and a more unified message across national and state levels. The Election Commission would face an unprecedented logistical and administrative challenge, requiring substantial investment in infrastructure, training, and security arrangements. It could also lead to a more stable legislative environment, reducing the frequency of political disruptions and the imposition of the Model Code of Conduct.

Reactions

The proposal has drawn sharp reactions from across the political spectrum and civil society. While the BJP and its allies largely support the move, citing its benefits for governance and economy, almost all major opposition parties—including the Congress, TMC, DMK, NCP, RJD, and Left parties—have voiced strong reservations. Civil society groups have expressed concerns about voter choice being diluted and the potential for a ‘presidential-style’ election where a single national leader’s popularity might disproportionately sway results across all tiers of government. Former Chief Election Commissioner S.Y. Quraishi, while acknowledging the potential benefits, has often underscored the constitutional complexities and the necessity for robust safeguards to protect electoral fairness and state autonomy.

What happens next

The immediate next step involves the Kovind committee submitting its comprehensive report, which is expected to outline the detailed roadmap, including proposed constitutional and statutory amendments. Following the report, the government is likely to initiate legislative processes in Parliament. Any constitutional amendments that alter the basic structure or fundamental rights, or those related to the distribution of powers between the Centre and states, would require not just a two-thirds majority in both Houses of Parliament but also ratification by at least half of the state legislative assemblies. This path is fraught with potential legal challenges and will undoubtedly become a major electoral issue in upcoming state and national elections. The political consensus, which is currently elusive, remains the biggest hurdle for this ambitious electoral reform.