Opposition, States Brace for 'One Nation, One Election' Battle: Federalism Under Strain

New Delhi, Delhi – The Union Government's persistent advocacy for the 'One Nation, One Election' (ONOE) framework is meeting a formidable wall of opposition from a wide spectrum of political parties and state administrations, sparking a critical debate over India's federal structure and electoral integrity.

The renewed push, spearheaded by a high-level committee, is being vehemently opposed as an attempt to centralise power and diminish regional distinctiveness, setting the stage for a contentious political battle ahead of the 2024 general elections.

Key points

* The Union Government is renewing its push for simultaneous Lok Sabha and state assembly elections despite strong dissenting voices.

* Opposition parties and several state governments label ONOE as anti-federal, anti-democratic, and a threat to India's diverse electoral landscape.

* Concerns are primarily raised over the feasibility, massive financial implications, and the potential for regional issues to be sidelined by national narratives.

* Experts warn of significant constitutional challenges, necessitating multiple amendments, and unprecedented logistical nightmares for the Election Commission of India.

* A high-level committee, tasked with exploring ONOE, is currently deliberating, with its composition and mandate drawing scrutiny from critics.

The concept of ONOE, aiming to synchronise elections for the Lok Sabha and all state assemblies, has been a recurring theme in political discourse, largely championed by the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and its allies.

Proponents argue that simultaneous polls would drastically cut down election expenditures, reduce the strain on administrative and security personnel, and allow governments to focus on governance rather than being in a perpetual election mode.

However, these arguments are being systematically dismantled by a coalition of opposition parties who see the move as a direct threat to the essence of Indian democracy.

"This is nothing short of a direct assault on the federal fabric of our nation and a clear ploy to centralise power," asserted Priyamvada Singh, National Spokesperson for the Indian National Congress. "It's designed to diminish the unique electoral mandates of states and convert state elections into mere referendums on national leadership, thereby stifling regional aspirations and issues.

We will resist this autocratic move tooth and nail."

Echoing this sentiment, S.

K.

Subramanian, Finance Minister of Tamil Nadu, a state governed by a regional party, stated, "Our state's issues, our language, our culture, and our specific developmental needs are distinct from national narratives.

Clubbing elections will dilute our voice and reduce state polls to mere contests dominated by national parties and their agendas.

This is detrimental to the vibrant pluralism of our political system."

Constitutional experts have also weighed in on the profound implications. "Implementing 'One Nation, One Election' requires not just one but potentially five to seven significant constitutional amendments, many of which could alter the basic structure of the Constitution," explained Professor Aditya Sharma, an eminent constitutional law expert at the National Law University, Delhi. "The logistical challenges for the Election Commission are immense, from managing an unprecedented scale of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) and Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trails (VVPATs) to deploying security forces across the nation simultaneously.

The scale of this operation would be monumental and fraught with potential for errors and disputes."

Sources within the Election Commission of India, speaking off the record due to the sensitive nature of the topic, indicated that while the concept offers administrative advantages in theory, the practicalities are staggering. "Estimates for fresh EVMs and VVPATs alone run into thousands of crores of rupees, besides the massive requirement for additional human resources and security," a senior official noted. "The current infrastructure, designed for staggered elections, would require a complete overhaul, demanding substantial time and investment."

Conversely, the ruling party maintains that the benefits far outweigh the challenges. "Simultaneous elections will undoubtedly save taxpayers' money, reduce the burden on our security forces, and crucially, allow governments at both the Centre and states to focus on policy implementation and development without constant electoral distractions," countered Dr.

Rajendra Prasad Gupta, National Spokesperson for the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). "The concerns about federalism are overblown; India is a Union of States, and a stronger, more efficient electoral process only strengthens our democratic institutions.

The high-level committee is carefully examining all aspects, including the constitutional and logistical implications, to find a workable solution."

Official data from past elections indicates that the cost of conducting Lok Sabha elections alone has risen exponentially, from approximately ₹1,000 crores in 2009 to nearly ₹5,500 crores in 2019.

Proponents suggest ONOE could save the exchequer tens of thousands of crores over a decade.

However, critics argue these savings might be offset by the initial capital expenditure for new equipment and infrastructure, and the intangible cost of democratic dilution.

Background

The idea of simultaneous elections is not new.

India initially conducted Lok Sabha and state assembly elections concurrently from 1952 to 1967.

This practice was disrupted by the premature dissolution of some state assemblies and the Lok Sabha itself, leading to separate election cycles.

The Law Commission of India, in its 170th report in 1999 and again in a working paper in 2018, examined the feasibility of ONOE, largely recommending it but outlining the necessity for significant constitutional and statutory changes.

The current impetus comes from a high-level committee, constituted by the Union Government in September 2023, under the leadership of former President Ram Nath Kovind, specifically tasked to explore and recommend a framework for simultaneous elections.

What it means

The move towards 'One Nation, One Election', if implemented, would fundamentally alter India's political landscape.

It could potentially shift voter behaviour, leading to national issues overshadowing local concerns, thereby disadvantaging regional parties.

Critics fear it might 'presidentialise' India's parliamentary democracy, where voters might be influenced more by the charisma of national leaders rather than local candidates or specific state issues.

It also raises questions about government stability; if a state government falls due to a no-confidence motion, new elections would either be delayed until the next cycle or necessitate exceptions that undermine the very principle of simultaneity.

This initiative could redefine the power balance, potentially centralising more authority with the Union Government at the expense of state autonomy and federal principles.

Reactions

The proposal has elicited strong, largely negative reactions from opposition parties.

The INDIA bloc, a coalition of opposition parties, has largely united in its rejection, viewing it as a diversionary tactic and an attack on federalism.

Regional parties like the DMK, Trinamool Congress, AAP, and Shiv Sena (UBT) have been particularly vocal, citing concerns over regional representation and the unique issues pertinent to their states.

Civil society groups and a section of legal academia have also expressed apprehension, pointing to the logistical nightmare for the Election Commission and potential for constitutional crises.

However, the BJP and its allies maintain that the move is reformist and aims at improving governance efficiency.

A few smaller regional parties, particularly those allied with the BJP, have expressed cautious openness, citing potential for reduced campaign costs.

What happens next

The high-level committee is expected to submit its report in the coming months, outlining its recommendations, including a detailed roadmap for constitutional amendments, statutory changes, and the necessary logistical preparations.

Should the committee recommend ONOE, the Union Government would then need to introduce bills in Parliament to amend the Constitution and the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Such constitutional amendments 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 elaborate legislative and ratification process, coupled with inevitable legal challenges in the Supreme Court and strong political resistance, suggests that the path to 'One Nation, One Election' is fraught with formidable hurdles and will be a defining political battle for the foreseeable future.