Namisha Ojha & Rajshree Tiwari
“Uniformity is now preferred over diversity and political expressions of state-based interests are seen as hurdles to the making of One India.” – Unknown
INTRODUCTION
If democracy is the heart of a nation, elections are the heartbeat of the democracy pulsating the hopes, aspirations and dreams of the citizens of a country. Holding elections is a sine qua non to call a particular nation “democratic”. Elections act as a mirror reflecting the goals and issues that make up a society, requiring it to face its inconsistencies and work towards development and harmony. The ‘One Nation, One Election’ (“ONOE“) concept significantly deviates from the inclusive democratic principles. Cloaked in administrative terms, this idea subtly promotes a singular cultural and political agenda, aiming to homogenize rather than embrace diversity.
THE JOURNEY SO FAR
The concept of ONOE, which is extensively supported by Prime Minister Modi, isn’t a new idea within India’s political landscape. Its historical roots trace back to the years 1952, 1957, 1962, and 1967, when elections followed this pattern. The introduction of the ONOE bill to the parliament was done by the 170th Law Commission Report in 1999, spearheaded by Justice BP Jeevan Reddy. The research paper presented to NITI Aayog in 2017 by Bibek Debroy, and Kishore Desai, has led the discourse on this matter to a larger population.
In the early years following the adoption of the Constitution in 1950, India followed ONOE, holding polls for both the Lok Sabha and state assemblies concurrently every five years from 1951 to 1967. However, this practice encountered challenges due to the emergence of new states, reorganization measures, and premature dissolution of assemblies.
[Source: Hindustan Times, August 2018]
The idea of simultaneous elections resurfaced prominently in 1999, a time when the RSS-BJP gained prominence in central politics. Prominent figures such as L.K. Advani vocally supported this concept, coinciding with the Law Commission’s recommendation of the idea. This era witnessed a shift in the political narrative, with debates revolving around the efficiency and feasibility of simultaneous elections amidst the evolving dynamics of India’s multi-party political landscape.
GOALS WHICH ONOE SEEKS TO ACHEIVE
Proponents argue that simultaneous elections at both the state and national levels would alleviate the financial burden imposed by frequent polls. The apparent lower costs in expenditures on logistics, transportation, and electoral materials present a favourable prospect, which could divert substantial resources towards critical social development schemes. The projected potential savings of ₹7,500 – ₹12,000 crore per general election cycle offer a glimpse of savings in this structure of governance.
The pledge of administrative ease and relief from the continuous campaign mode is deemed to be a catalyst for long-term policy making, ostensibly allowing elected officials to direct their focus towards governance rather than being engaged in short-term election campaigns and related activities. The Election Commission of India further lends support to this reform, citing the substantial logistical and administrative challenges it deals with during different elections. The strain on resources and the disruption in implementing the Model Code of Conduct due to repeated deployments of staff, equipment, and security forces during various elections underscores the need for a more synchronized electoral process.
While the allure of ONOE is compelling, with its promises of financial prudence and administrative efficacy, the inherent challenges and complexities cast a shadow over these anticipated benefits. Preserving the integrity of democratic processes, ensuring equitable resource distribution, respecting regional diversity, and maintaining a robust governance framework demand a cautious and meticulous approach before embracing such a reform.
THREE MAJOR REPORTS ON FEASIBILITY OF ONOE
The pursuit of ONOE has been a subject of exploration and discussion, manifesting through various reports over the years. The initial mention of returning to simultaneous elections appeared in the Election Commission’s 1983 report, laying the groundwork for subsequent deliberations on this concept.
1. The Law Commission’s 1999 report, under the leadership of Justice B. P. Jeevan Reddy, strongly advocated for a return to the practice of holding elections for the Lok Sabha and all Legislative Assemblies simultaneously every five years.
2. The Parliamentary Standing Committee’s 2015 report, led by Dr. E. M.SudarsanaNatchiappan,emphasized the reduction of considerable expenditure incurred during separate elections, mitigating policy paralysis, minimizing disruptions to the delivery of essential services, and reducing the burden on manpower during election periods.
3. The Law Commission’s 2018 draft report, chaired by Justice B. S. Chauhan, underscored that conducting simultaneous elections within the existing constitutional framework was not feasible. It proposed the necessity for constitutional amendments, amendments to the Representation of the People Act 1951, and modifications to the Rules of Procedure of Lok Sabha and state Assemblies to facilitate simultaneous elections. It also recommended that at least 50% of states should ratify these constitutional amendments.
These reports collectively provide a comprehensive exploration of the ONOE,outlining its potential advantages while underscoring the substantial legal and procedural changes required to implement such a system in India.
CONSTITUTIONAL IMPEDIMENTS
ONOE faces significant constitutional and practical hurdles, with the primary challenge revolving around synchronizing the Lok Sabha’s tenure with that of state legislative assemblies.Article 83(2) and 172(1) of the Constitutionstate that the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies will usually last five years, but implementing ONOE would necessitate the premature dissolution of several state assemblies that won’t complete their five-year terms before the next Lok Sabha elections.Thiscould contradict Article 172, which stipulates that state legislative assemblies should continue for a full five-year term unless dissolution occursdue to law and order issues, upon the request of the state’s chief minister, a successful motion of no confidence against the ruling party, or the imposition of President’s rule under Article 356.
Now, the question arises: If the Central or State government falls during their term, will elections occur in every State, or will President’s rule be enforced?
Let us take a view of some of the prominent decisions by the SC which support federalism, democracy, and multi-party system.
In KihotoHollohan v. Zachilhu (1993), the Supreme Court reiterated its position on democracy and elections, emphasizing their integral role in the Constitution’s fundamental framework. Democracy, the rule of law, and the conduct of free and fair elections are pivotal within this framework.
In another case of Kuldip Nayar v. UOI (2006), the Supreme Court highlighted the intrinsic relationship between the political party system and democracy. It noted that a multi-party system is fundamental to the Indian Constitution’s framework, emphasizing the non-ambiguity of the Constitution’s basic structure. However, implementing ONOE might consolidate control under one dominant national party, contradicting these judgments.
According to a study conducted by the IDFC institute, it was found that, on average, there exists“a 77 per cent probability that an Indian voter will vote for the same party for both the State and Centre when elections are conducted simultaneously.” The study analyzed data spanning four rounds of Lok Sabha elections—1999, 2004, 2009, and 2014. They focused on “States where elections coincided with these Lok Sabha elections and observed a trend where the likelihood of choosing the same party transitioned from 68 per cent in 1999 to 77 per cent in 2004, 76 per cent in 2009, and remarkably rose to 86 per cent in 2014.”
[Source: The Hindu Business Line]
This trend suggests that, over time, the inclination of the voter to opt for different parties is progressively diminishing.
REALISTIC IMPEDIMENTS TO OVERCOME
As stated by Former Chief Election Commissioner S Y Qureshi, “The problems far outweigh the benefits. From a purely administrative perspective, there could be some benefits. But from the perspective of democracy and the Constitution, the benefits are not very correct.”
Federalism– Article 1 of the Indian Constitution states, “India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States.” The structure of governance in India is essentially quasi-federal. In the case of S. R. Bommai v. UOI(1994), the SC ruled that “The end aim of the essential character of the Indian federalism is to place the nation as a whole under control of a national Government, while the States are allowed to exercise their sovereign power within their legislative and coextensive executive and administrative sphere. The common interest is shared by the Centre and the local interests are controlled by the States.” Therefore, it allocated the share of interests between Centre and the States.
In another case of UCO Bank v. Dipak Debbarma (2017), the Court recognized the necessity of upholding the federal balance that the framers intended to prevent the Centre or the States from usurping power.State governments usually have distinct issues and goals for growth of their own. Voters may decide on different concerns throughout different election cycles when state and federal elections are not held together. A lack of emphasis and importance for state-specific issues might result from synchronizing all elections. Therefore, centralization of power may prevail when implementing ONOE model.
National Issues Dominance– National parties often have greater resources and a larger footprint as compared to regional parties. Elections held at the same time each year might lead national parties to concentrate their campaigns on broad national topics, overshadowing the unique challenges and objectives of many states and regions.When national issues take centre stage, voters have less opportunity to assess how well state governments are performing in terms of infrastructure, social indices, welfare program implementation, and governance.
In this context, the concept of “touching effect” becomes crucial. It naturally elevates the ruling party or coalition government; there is always a chance that may be voted to political power. In light of this, national political parties are anticipated to have a commanding lead in the event of simultaneous elections, while regional parties would either do worse or be compelled to collaborate with rivals at the national level. Therefore, the dominance of national issues inhibits regional aspirations.
Reduced Democratic Accountability– A statement given by a politician, i.e. “jab chunavaatahain, garibonke pet me pulavaathahain (whenever elections happen, the poor get benefit)”,is an undeniable fact. Also, it is contended that elections are probably the only time of the year where the poor are recognized and given due importance.
Regular state assembly elections, which take place several months apart from Lok Sabha polls, provide opposition parties with periodic opportunities to draw attention to the policy shortcomings of the administration. Adding to it, the long five-year stints without pressures of accountability tend to reduce the need of governments to reform and change. Democratic pressures to make the administration responsive are diluted when there is a 5-year prolonged period with no elections in the nation.
Cost-Saving Estimates: The Real Picture– One of the projected benefits that proponents of ONOE assert is that under the existing system of elections, the political parties (whether national or regional) have to spend enormous amount year after year for general as well as state elections. However, one of the reports by the Association for Democratic Reforms shows that during the Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Telangana & Mizoram Assembly elections, 2018, it disclosed that the total amount of funds received through cash, cheques and demand drafts was a whopping926.71 Cr collected by 16 political parties and the expenditure incurred was a mere 360.68 Cr. Another report by ADR analyzing the total amount of funds received were 2077.815 Cr and the expenditure incurred was 288.356 Cr during Himachal Pradesh and Gujarat Assembly Elections, 2022. The said facts and figures suggest that there is a huge gap between funds received and expenditures incurred by the political parties in India. Thus, the whole argument of cost burden on political parties becomes futile as there is a huge amount that is collected by the political parties and remains underutilized.
It is also worthwhile to note that regarding the purported cost savings, a huge amount of funds are either underspent (2016 CAG report disclosed Rs 1,30,000 Cr unused cess funds over past 20 years)or large sums of money is spent on questionable items such as statues, publicity, etc. Another potential challenge is the availability of resources and cost of logistics of holding ONOE in India. The ECI in its report speculated that a large scale of EVMs and VVPAT machines shall be required to purchase estimating a total of Rs. 9284.15 Cr. There will be a need to replace these machines every fifteen years that would again entail expenditure. There will also be an increase of warehousing cost due to storage of these machines. Therefore, what is purported in the name of cost-savings may be in reality an illusion of the same.
Instances of other countries– Across the globe,Belgium, Sweden, and South Africa are the countries that conduct simultaneous elections in their respective regions. Apart from that, US, The Philippines, Guyana, Columbia, Brazil, Costa Rica, Bolivia are other countries where elections of President and Legislative Elections are held simultaneously.
However, there cannot be a comparison between the aforementioned countries and that of India. This is so because firstly, the difference in system of governance is very crucial as accountability of the executive towards the legislatureis a fundamental aspect in Parliamentary System that is prevalent in India; secondly,India is a country with a diverse population spread across diverse regions and conducting elections on a large scale shall require substantial resources and careful planning; and thirdly, according to The Economic Times Bureau, the true problem at hand is the centralization of power, often known as the “coat-tails effect” in the USA, which occurs when a powerful national leader or party supports candidates at the state level.
As the debate over electoral reforms continues, decision-makers need to carefully balance the benefits of any proposed changes against the difficulties that come with them to make sure that any improvements advance democracy rather than creating a mirage of benefits.
SUGGESTIONS AND CONCLUSION
The concept of ONOE is rooted in an economic and administrative logic that leans towards increased centralization in specific areas. It represents an effort to reshape the nation according to a majoritarianism perspective, prioritizing uniformity over diversity. The road to realizing the purported advantages of this initiative appears laden with formidable obstacles, challenging the very essence of constitutional principles and the “quasi-federal” nature of the world’s largest democracy.
One proposed solution, advocated by the Parliamentary Standing Committee, involves a two-cycle election process. In this model, one phase aligns with the Lok Sabha elections, while the subsequent phase occurs precisely 30 months later. This arrangement stands to mitigate the current frequency of elections, potentially reducing disruptions to the implementation of vital welfare programs.
The current government should refrain from hastily pushing forward with the implementation of ONOE in India. Instead, it ought to conduct more comprehensive research to understand the views of stakeholders involved and also carefully examine the data available in this regard. There must be mandatory involvement of voters, opposition leaders, and local representatives in deliberations to find the most suitable approach for introducing this concept. The representation given to these individuals will ensure that lacunae present in this model of governance will be addressed and the opinion of all affected entities will be considered. This process will allow India to genuinely evaluate its readiness for adopting “One Nation, One Election.”
The Authors are third-year law students at Hidayatullah National Law University.
This article was the Winner in the 1st CLS-NLUO Essay Writing Competition 2023-24.
Image Credits: Google
Constitutional Law Society 
Leave a comment