One Nation, One Election Report Ignites Political Firestorm: Federalism and Democracy at Crossroads

New Delhi, March 15, 2024: The highly anticipated report by the High-Level Committee (HLC) on 'One Nation, One Election' (ONOE) has been met with a storm of opposition and cautious optimism across India's political spectrum, reigniting fierce debates over federalism, electoral fairness, and the very fabric of Indian democracy.

While the ruling dispensation has hailed the proposals as a crucial step towards administrative efficiency and fiscal prudence, a formidable alliance of opposition parties has decried them as a direct assault on the constitutional order and the vibrant multi-party system that defines Indian politics.

Key points

* The HLC has recommended simultaneous elections for Lok Sabha and State Assemblies, citing significant cost savings and improved governance stability.

* Opposition parties vehemently oppose the proposal, warning of erosion of federalism, disempowerment of regional issues, and a disadvantage for smaller political entities.

* Legal and constitutional experts flag the monumental task of amending numerous articles of the Constitution and the necessity of broad political consensus, including state ratifications.

* Civil society groups express concerns over diminished local representation, potential for a 'national wave' to overshadow state-specific concerns, and increased centralisation of power.

* The government remains firm, positioning ONOE as a reform essential for India's rapid development trajectory by ending the perpetual election cycle.

Following months of deliberations and consultations with various stakeholders, the HLC, chaired by former President Shri Ram Nath Kovind, submitted its voluminous report to the President of India earlier this week.

The report is understood to endorse the feasibility of simultaneous elections, outlining a comprehensive roadmap involving several constitutional amendments, legislative changes, and technological upgrades.

Proponents argue that the current cycle of near-constant elections for Lok Sabha, State Assemblies, and local bodies drains public exchequer resources, diverts administrative focus, and perpetuates a climate of electoral populism.

“The 'One Nation, One Election' initiative is a visionary reform that aims to unshackle India from the perpetual election mode,” stated Dr.

Jitendra Singh, Union Minister of State (Independent Charge) for Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions. “Imagine the savings – not just in terms of money, but also in human resources and governance bandwidth.

Our government is committed to ensuring every rupee is spent on development, not on endless electoral campaigns.” Dr.

Singh highlighted the projected economic benefits and the potential for a more focused legislative agenda.

However, the opposition has launched a scathing critique. “This is nothing short of an assault on India’s federal structure and an attempt to centralise power by diluting the voice of states and regional parties,” asserted Mr.

Mallikarjun Kharge, President of the Indian National Congress. “Our Constitution envisages distinct terms for the Union and State Legislatures.

Forcing simultaneous polls will inevitably lead to a situation where national issues eclipse regional concerns, fundamentally altering the democratic equilibrium of our diverse nation.

It is an attack on the very spirit of the Constitution.”

Experts also weigh in on the logistical and constitutional challenges. “Implementing 'One Nation, One Election' is not merely a policy choice; it demands immense constitutional and logistical re-engineering,” noted Mr.

N.

Gopalaswami, former Chief Election Commissioner of India. “Key articles relating to the dissolution of the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies, the duration of legislative bodies, and the powers of the Election Commission would require significant amendments, many of which would necessitate ratification by at least half of the state legislatures.

This is a Herculean task requiring broad political consensus, which currently appears elusive.”

From a financial perspective, government figures indicate that conducting separate Lok Sabha and Assembly elections cost the exchequer approximately ₹5,000 crore in the last general election cycle alone.

Election Commission sources, in their submissions to the HLC, estimated that a fully implemented ONOE system could potentially reduce election expenditures by 30-40% over a five-year cycle, freeing up significant funds for development projects.

Beyond direct costs, there are indirect costs associated with the Model Code of Conduct, which often brings development work to a standstill, and the deployment of security forces.

Background

The idea of simultaneous elections is not new to India.

It was first mooted by the Election Commission in 1983 and later endorsed by the Law Commission in its 1999 report.

However, practical and political challenges prevented its implementation.

The current impetus stems from Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi's vision for faster development and efficient governance, articulated repeatedly since 2014.

The High-Level Committee, formed in September 2023, was tasked with examining the feasibility of holding simultaneous elections and suggesting a practical framework.

Its mandate included studying constitutional amendments, logistical preparedness of the Election Commission, and the impact on political parties and voters.

The frequency of elections in India is indeed high.

Over the last decade, there have been over 50 major state assembly elections, in addition to two Lok Sabha polls, numerous by-elections, and countless local body elections.

Each election cycle entails massive mobilisation of resources, from security personnel and polling staff to campaign infrastructure and voter awareness drives.

Proponents argue that ONOE would streamline this process, saving crucial administrative time and public money.

What it means

The implementation of 'One Nation, One Election' would fundamentally alter India's electoral landscape.

At its core, it seeks to bring greater stability to governance by reducing the likelihood of hung assemblies and frequent President's Rule.

However, critics argue that this stability comes at the cost of democratic responsiveness.

If state and national elections are clubbed, there is a significant risk that regional issues, which are often distinct and crucial for state-level politics, might be overshadowed by dominant national narratives or personalities.

Such a system could disproportionately benefit larger national parties with greater resources and media reach, potentially marginalising smaller, regional parties that often articulate local concerns.

Furthermore, the constitutional hurdles are immense.

It would require amendments to Articles 83 (duration of Houses of Parliament), 85 (dissolution of Lok Sabha), 172 (duration of State Legislatures), 174 (dissolution of State Assemblies), and 356 (President's Rule), among others.

Many of these amendments would necessitate ratification by at least half of the state legislatures, making political consensus indispensable.

“The dilution of local issues is a major concern,” opined Dr.

Priya Sharma, a political analyst and professor at Delhi University. “Voters might be swayed by national issues while electing their state representatives, blurring the lines of accountability.

This could weaken the federal bargain and shift more power towards the Centre, contrary to the decentralising spirit that has slowly strengthened in India.”

Reactions

**Political Parties:**

The **Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)** and its allies have largely welcomed the HLC report, reiterating their commitment to ONOE as a means to achieve governance stability and accelerate development. “This will usher in a new era of focused governance, where elected representatives can concentrate on policy implementation rather than perpetual campaigning,” stated a senior BJP spokesperson.

Conversely, the **Indian National Congress**, along with other major opposition parties like the **Trinamool Congress (TMC)**, **Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK)**, **Samajwadi Party (SP)**, and the **Aam Aadmi Party (AAP)**, have rejected the proposal outright.

Ms.

Mamata Banerjee, Chief Minister of West Bengal and TMC Supremo, termed it a “dangerous idea that will undermine states’ rights.” DMK leader and Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K.

Stalin called it a “blatant attack on federalism” and indicated his party would mobilise against it.

These parties fear that ONOE would lead to a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach, ignoring the unique socio-political dynamics of different states.

**Legal Fraternity & Academics:**

While some legal scholars acknowledge the potential for administrative efficiency, many have voiced strong reservations about the constitutional propriety and practical implications.

Concerns revolve around the 'basic structure' doctrine, the independence of the Election Commission, and potential scenarios where a state government falls mid-term.

Legal experts like Mr.

Rajendra Sharma, a Supreme Court advocate, emphasised that such a fundamental change must not be rushed and requires extensive public debate beyond political circles.

**Civil Society & Public:**

Civil society organisations working on electoral reforms have expressed a mix of concern and cynicism.

Many worry about the potential for voter fatigue if they have to cast votes for multiple elections on the same day, especially in states with complex ballot papers.

There are also fears that larger parties with deeper pockets would dominate campaign narratives, making it difficult for new or smaller parties to compete effectively.

What happens next

The submission of the HLC report marks the beginning, not the end, of the 'One Nation, One Election' journey.

The Union government is expected to review the recommendations thoroughly and may introduce a Bill in Parliament in an upcoming session.

Such a Bill, given its far-reaching implications, is likely to face intense scrutiny and could potentially be referred to a Joint Parliamentary Committee for further examination.

Should the government decide to proceed, the path ahead is fraught with constitutional and political challenges.

Any amendments to the Constitution would require a two-thirds majority in both Houses of Parliament and, for certain provisions, ratification by at least half of the state legislatures.

This necessitates securing the support of several non-NDA ruled states, which currently appear disinclined to back the proposal.

Furthermore, any enacted law is almost certain to face legal challenges in the Supreme Court, potentially delaying or even derailing its implementation.

The Election Commission of India will play a pivotal role in operationalising ONOE, should it come to pass.

This includes massive logistical planning for simultaneous polling, procurement of additional Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) and Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) machines, training of personnel, and ensuring the integrity of the electoral process on an unprecedented scale.

The coming months are set to witness a vigorous national debate, shaping the future of India's democratic framework.