The 'One Nation, One Election' proposal aims to synchronize Lok Sabha and state assembly elections across India, promising efficiency and cost savings while sparking significant debate on its implications for democracy.
New Delhi, September 21, 2024: In a significant political development, the Union Cabinet has approved the proposal for ‘One Nation, One Election’, which aims to conduct simultaneous elections for the Lok Sabha and state assemblies across India. This initiative, endorsed by a committee led by former President Ram Nath Kovind, seeks to reshape the electoral landscape of the country, reminiscent of the pre-1967 era when such practices were the norm. As the nation braces for this potential shift, it is essential to understand what ‘One Nation, One Election’ entails, its benefits, and the various legal and constitutional challenges it faces.
Historical Context of Simultaneous Elections
The concept of conducting simultaneous elections traces back to India’s early democratic years, beginning with the first general elections in 1951-52. For over a decade, elections for both the Lok Sabha and state assemblies were held concurrently, promoting a streamlined electoral process. However, this practice was disrupted after 1967 due to various factors, including premature dissolutions of state governments, which led to an irregular electoral cycle.
Currently, the electoral schedule is staggered, with different states holding elections at different times, resulting in a continuous campaign cycle. Critics argue that this not only strains resources but also diminishes voter engagement. As of now, only a few states, like Andhra Pradesh and Odisha, manage to align their assembly elections with general elections, leading to significant variations across the nation.
What Does ‘One Nation, One Election’ Entail?
The core idea of ‘One Nation, One Election’ is straightforward: to hold elections for the Lok Sabha and all state assemblies at the same time, along with local body elections within a designated period. The Kovind panel’s report, which has garnered mixed reactions, posits that this shift could lead to numerous benefits, including cost savings and enhanced governance focus.
According to proponents, a unified electoral process could save the government and political parties substantial resources. For instance, the 2019 Lok Sabha elections reportedly cost around ₹60,000 crore, covering expenses related to political campaigning and the deployment of security personnel. Streamlining elections could mitigate these costs, allowing for more effective governance without the constant disruption of election cycles.
Benefits of Simultaneous Elections
Advocates for ‘One Nation, One Election’ argue that simultaneous elections can lead to:
- Increased Economic Efficiency: By reducing the frequency of elections, governments can focus more on governance and policy-making rather than on constant campaigning. Proponents believe this will result in enhanced economic growth for the country.
- Higher Voter Turnout: A single election day could help consolidate voter engagement, reducing fatigue associated with multiple election cycles, and thereby potentially increasing voter turnout.
- Streamlined Security Operations: Conducting elections simultaneously would allow for a more efficient deployment of security forces, cutting down on the extensive resources needed for multiple elections over short periods.
Former Union Minister Anurag Thakur has emphasized that aligning elections could lead to a ‘Viksit Bharat’ (developed India) much sooner than 2047, marking a significant milestone for the nation.
Opposition and Criticism
Despite the proposed benefits, the ‘One Nation, One Election’ initiative has faced significant backlash from various political factions, primarily led by the Congress party. Critics argue that the proposal could undermine local governance by overshadowing regional issues with national narratives. Congress leader Mallikarjun Kharge characterized the proposal as an “attempt to divert public attention” from pressing issues, particularly ahead of crucial state elections.
Moreover, concerns regarding the democratic integrity of the process have been raised. Opposition parties warn that the government’s move could subvert the constitutional architecture that allows for independent state governance. Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee has been vocal against the proposal, suggesting it poses a risk to the basic structure of the Constitution.
The opposition also highlights the potential logistical challenges and costs associated with implementing simultaneous elections, especially regarding the replacement of electronic voting machines (EVMs) and ensuring adequate security for all polling stations.
Legal and Constitutional Challenges
Implementing ‘One Nation, One Election’ presents substantial legal and constitutional hurdles that must be navigated carefully. The following points elaborate on these challenges:
1. Constitutional Amendments Required
The proposal necessitates amendments to several key articles of the Indian Constitution, including:
- Article 83: This article governs the duration of the Houses of Parliament. Changes will be needed to redefine the term and dissolution process of the Lok Sabha, which currently stipulates a five-year term.
- Article 85: This article permits the President to dissolve the Lok Sabha. Amendments will require establishing a new framework for dissolution that aligns with simultaneous elections.
- Article 172: Similar to Article 83, this article addresses the duration of state legislatures, requiring amendments to synchronize assembly terms with Lok Sabha elections.
- Article 174: This article outlines the process for the dissolution of state legislatures, which must also be amended to facilitate simultaneous elections.
- Article 356: This article empowers the President to impose President’s Rule in states. The implications of simultaneous elections during such scenarios need clarification.
2. Need for a Two-Thirds Majority
To amend these articles, the ruling party needs a two-thirds majority in both Houses of Parliament. Currently, the BJP and its allies do not hold the necessary supermajority, which means they will require the support of opposition parties. This necessity adds a layer of complexity, as many opposition members are expected to resist the proposal.
3. Ratification by State Legislatures
Any amendments affecting state legislatures must also be ratified by at least half of the states. This requirement emphasizes the federal nature of the Indian Constitution and could pose challenges if several state governments oppose the changes. The political landscape is fragmented, and garnering the necessary state-level support will be contentious.
4. Impact on Democratic Processes
Critics warn that simultaneous elections could undermine local governance by overshadowing regional issues with national narratives. If Lok Sabha elections coincide with state elections, local matters may receive less attention, leading to a homogenization of political discourse. This raises questions about the democratic representation of diverse regional interests.
5. Legal Precedents and Judicial Scrutiny
The proposal is likely to face judicial scrutiny. The Supreme Court of India may be called upon to adjudicate the constitutionality of the proposed changes. Legal precedents indicate that alterations affecting the core principles of democracy—such as free and fair elections—will be closely examined. Past cases suggest that any perceived infringement on the basic structure of the Constitution could lead to legal challenges.
6. Implementation Logistics
Even if the constitutional amendments are passed, the logistics of implementing simultaneous elections will require extensive planning. Key logistical challenges include:
- Deployment of Security Forces: Organizing a massive security apparatus to manage multiple elections simultaneously poses significant logistical challenges.
- Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs): Ensuring sufficient EVM availability and managing their maintenance and security will require substantial investment and planning.
- Election Commission’s Role: The Election Commission, as an independent body, may have reservations about executing such a monumental shift without adequate preparation. Its autonomy and ability to conduct free and fair elections could be perceived as compromised.
7. Potential Political Manipulation
There are concerns that the central government might leverage its power to influence state elections. Critics argue that simultaneous elections could lead to a scenario where national parties overshadow regional ones, potentially diluting local governance. This aspect raises constitutional concerns about the balance of power between the central and state governments.
Next Steps
The Kovind panel’s recommendations will be presented to Parliament in the upcoming Winter Session, expected to commence in December 2024. The government aims to pass two critical bills — one addressing Lok Sabha and Assembly elections and another for local body elections. Each bill’s success hinges on garnering sufficient support from various political parties.
Conclusion
In summary, while the ‘One Nation, One Election’ proposal aims to streamline the electoral process, it faces considerable legal and constitutional challenges. From the necessity of amending key articles of the Constitution to ensuring state-level ratification and addressing democratic concerns, the implementation process is fraught with complexity. As discussions continue, it will be crucial for lawmakers to engage with these challenges thoughtfully to protect the integrity of India’s democratic framework.
The future of ‘One Nation, One Election‘ lies not only in the corridors of power but also in the hands of the electorate. As the debate unfolds, all stakeholders must engage in constructive dialogue, ensuring that any changes made to the electoral system enhance rather than undermine the democratic fabric of the nation. The implications of this initiative could be far-reaching, influencing how governance is perceived and executed across India for generations to come.
