Abstract-:
India is the biggest democracy with the largest number of voters in the country, where elections play an important role in ensuring its democratic nature.
The policy of one Nation One election was laid down by the current government of India on 17th December, 2024 through a bill in which they proposed that general elections of all types in India, either assembly elections or of any state legislature must happen in one day or in a stipulated time frame.
This bill was made open for discussion in the house of people (lok sabha) but the current government needed 362 members to support this bill in order to implement the bill but has only 293 members to support this.
That’s why it is not currently implemented as a law in India but government these days is trying to implement this in India, many discussions and debates on this are going on these days, so that it must be conveyed PAN India and people can know about it.
However a High level Committee has been formed on 2 September, 2024 on One Nation One election under the chairmanship of Ramnath Kovind (our ex-president) general secretary of which is DR. NITIN CHANDRA. The parent organisation of which is Government of India and key people involved in this committee are Mr. Amit Shah, Mr. Ghulam Nabi Azad, Mr. Nk Singh, Dr. Subhash Chandra, Adv. Mr. Harish Salve, Mr Sanjay Khatri, Mr. Arjun Ram Meghwal.
On 14 march 2024 with the combined efforts of all the members, in 191 days a report comprising 18,626 pages was submitted to the current president of india Dr. Draupadi Murmu .
Elections in India -:
From earlier years 1951-52 when the election has been started in India in a democratic way. It was held simultaneously for the assembly and State legislature till 1967 after that out of nowhere this cannot be taken forward due to some reasons, Now elections are held every year in any corner of India either in State ,Central or of any local authority are held without any periodic differences. Sometimes there is no fixed time period of elections due to which very huge amounts of money are borne as expenses of election by the government in security, election officials, machinery, travelling ,counting etc.
The Law Commission in it’s 170th report on reforms of electoral laws has observed that “the cycle of holding election every year and without any proper timing must put to an end.We must revisit the earlier position where election of the house of people and state legislature were held simultaneously.”
In furtherance of this the moral code of conduct is applied due to which a delay in the formation of policies and it’s application is to be observed which can be observed as a need for the one Nation and one election.
It was also observed that in order to ensure the elections to be held simultaneously the president rule must be enforced where any kind of government topline is done then there must be the president rule to be enforced.
S.R. BOMMANI V. Union of India
In this case it was held that there must also be a fact to be kept in mind that none of the government can enforce article 356 in every condition. There is a substantial limit of it to be used ,there is only ground of emergency in which the powers of state are to be transferred to President and the democracy of the place is to be compromised , as a result the power of state is to be revoked. So in case of no confidence motion, the resignation of the Prime Minister or the Cheif Minister the separate election must be treated as an absolute rule. As not to promote any misuse of power by any central authority.
Pros. and cons. Of One Nation One election policy -:
On 19th June 2019, there was a meeting held in which the invitation was sent to all the political parties and their leaders. So as to discuss the idea of one Nation one election policy, of which the main motive was to synchronise the elections.
Various advantages and disadvantages were found to have come out, of which some are as follows.
Pros-:
• Keep a check on party expenses-
This policy of one Nation election can be really very helpful to monitor the expenses done by the political parties in order to win elections. It would be made easier as all the expenses or any expenses which are unallowed and any other expense to be under control and to have a deep check on all these expenses. In addition of which these expenses could be reduced and record keeping of which would also be made easier for any purpose (these expenses are also done to manipulate the voters, which is very dangerous for a healthy democracy), as a result there would be no need to keep a multiple checks as all the elections would be held in one time frame.
•To reduce burden on administrative setup-
These elections are very costly in nature as huge amounts of money are to be spent during the elections, for the security forces, officials ,machinery and other expenses ,as discussed earlier.
These would be increased in upcoming years as declared by ADR report.In the first election around 1874 candidates contested elections which cost 11 crore Rupees as poll expenses to the government in 2019, it increased to 9000 candidates and 60,000 crores rupees of cost as poll expenses .If this would not be stopped with one Nation one election policy, then it would cost much more in upcoming years. This policy would save public hard and money and the election cost would be highly reduced.
•Judging policies by voters-
It would be easier for voters to determine and judge the policies and to get a check for it, how much of it is delivered and how much are not in real means ,because these political leader promises for different thing in different state but do not remember any promises after elections by unfulfillment of these promises they mess with the emotion of the public who vote for them ,and after next 5 years no one remember what was promised earlier or sometimes leaders are given a second chance. But with the policy of one Nation one election, it would be ensured by the public that every leader would fulfill its promises which he made and do not make them fake promises as all as in all nation election would be at the same time.
• Easy Governance –
The synchronization of election of both houses in the policy of one Nation one election would lead to solving the problems on governance due to the elections like leader would be busy in election campaign as elections are to be held at any time in any corner of the countries so that the leaders busy in campaign can not give time to their governance. The enforcement of moral code of conduct would delay in the policies to be implemented which is not good for healthy democracy the repeated election also causes clashes of policy ,the implemented policy by one government can easily be uprooted by the other if there is a difference of power and opinions .
•Helpful for the government officials and public –
If the policy of one nation one election is implemented then it would be helpful for the government official to be more prepared for the election which would assure free and fair elections made efficiently, the Government officials ,the election commission gets no time for the preparation as there are rapids of election in unsystematic and non periodic way which we can remove by the policy of one Nation one election and the government official would get some time to take rest , as continuous works may lose their interest in their work during election which is not a good sign .
The people from different parts of the country are not able to vote for their candidate as they are far from their constituency where the election is being held but due to burden of work they cannot go anywhere as these elections are not certain sometimes, this problem will get a solution if this policy is implemented as then each of the elections would be held at a time for which one would get a leave and he could vote for his favourite candidate
Cons-:
•Chaos in election –
Apart from all the advantages the policy of one Nation in election. There is a main disadvantage that there would be chaos in election, for different parties there are different symbols, so in order to vote one party one has to determine the EVM on which he is voting for example, if anyone wants to vote to different candidate for state and Central respectively then he has to properly be acknowledged for the EVM machine as for which it is either Lok Sabha or legislature, which always will confuse a voter and there are very less number of voters who arethis much trained and known, most of the public are not not having this much information in this manner.
•Chances of mismanagement –
The policy of one Nation one election if implemented would cause a high chance for the case of mismanagement the mis management in a way that government officials might get confused how to operate as this would cause a burden on them, if gone for the solution it would need extra staff, extra machinery and extra security which would obviously cause the extra money to be spent for which one nation one election is advised to be implemented out of nowhere if this happens the EVMs and VVPATs would more securely be travelled which would cause a loss in the resources of the country also as a result can cause mis management either by negligence or by red tapism.
•Unfair advantages –
The central government which supports this policy of one Nation one election can take unfair advantage of this like after winning in general election of state legislation any government has taken charge but due to this policy if there are assembly election to be held. So in order to synchronise both elections any one of them has to compromise for the time being, from taking charge and have less years to form a government. So in most of the cases it would be the state government to compromise and Central to take the unfair advantage of the same .
The central government can mould the elections in its own way to form the government of its party in more and more States as all the power during election are transferred to the election commissioner and Central Government being more powerful can take the unfair advantage of the same.
•Amendments in constitution –
For the implementation of this policy of one Nation one election,there are several amendments in the constitution to be followed amendment in following articles are to be made.
a.) ARTICLE 83 as per this article the Lok Sabha will function for five years and will dissolve after that.
b.) ARTICLE 85 as per this article the president has power to dissolve the parliament.
c.) ARTICLE 172 as per this article the state legislature will function for five years and will dissolve after that .
d.) ARTICLE 174 as per this article governor has power to dissolve state legislature.
e.) ARTICLE 356 as per this article the central government can impose president rule in case of any failure of any constitutional machinery
f.) There must be a need to amend representation of people act also.
•Difficult to convince –
The policy of One Nation One election is very impossible to be implemented at this time because it is decision to be made with a special majority, which is 362 out of the total Lok Sabha members, but current government is with the majority of 293 member, so it is very difficult to be implemented and also in the meeting of June 19 ,2019 most of the leaders of the opposition party do not support this policy due to their personal interest these policies are oftenly remain unsupported by the opposition to just create a hindrance in the policy making and welfare of the country.
Conclusion –
One country, one poll is for keeping together the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assembly election cycles in India. Supporters would debate a string of potential advantages to be gained from it such as lower election expenses, improved governance efficiency, and fewer disruptions to the legislative process itself. Simultaneous polls could also translate into a lower political environment marked by electoral exhaustion normally felt by voters. And lastly, even greater focus on developmental programs.
In another context, proponents are of the view that concurrent elections would translate into stability of administration. Most of the time, cohesive mandate arising would place parties in a stronger position to advance long-term agendas without distraction from incessant electoral contests. It could even accord the electorate more focus, since voters would be addressing at one time much greater issues at the state and national levels, instead of having to navigate threadbare, discrete election cycles.
The proposal is, however, opposed and contested. Opponents of the proposal do acknowledge that the whole argument, national-elections taking precedence over state elections, would neutralize the federal nature of India since local elections are primarily concerned with local matters and sentiments but are subjected to the national-level campaigns. This would truly be a breach of representative democracy, where the voters would look only at national issues and would disregard issues of their state.
In addition, the rules of implementation are severely tested by the reality that, as things are now, the political alignment in every one of the different states is too diverse, added to the reality that incumbents in the different states hold office on different terms. It also poses the danger of entrenchment to the entrenched political parties. This has the potential of leading to negative implications for smaller, regional parties.
This is to note that while the “One Nation, One Election” idea is unprecedented in simplifying an electoral process so much in India, it too comes with its own twists and turns when it comes to its successful implementation. It should be taken a step at a time after thoroughly examining the implications on democracy, representation, and governance. Efficiency would then need to be balanced with the very democratic dictum of representing every voice and issue in the electoral context.
By Harsht, human: One Nation, One Election in India suggests a coordinated cycle of Lok Sabha (the lower house of Parliament) and State Legislative Assemblies’ election. According to the proponents, it would bring a set of advantages ranging from lower election expenses to improved governance efficiencies to lesser disruptions to the legislative business itself by holding simultaneous elections. Relief of the electoral exhaustion to the voters, along with a decrease in the machinery of the elections for more attention to developmental programs, can also be witnessed in the same political environment. Concurrent elections would also be apt to guarantee governance stability since the parties holding unitary mandates would be more effective in setting enduring policies than under the interference of constant election cycles. The configuration could also make and inspire the average voter, digesting effectively major national and state affairs all at once, instead of truncated, little, disparate election cycles.
But the idea confronts very hard criticism and is beset by many hurdles. Critics question a point of dissent against the entire argument and it is maintained by them that national elections would outweigh state elections within the Indian federal system as the latter follow regional issues and local sentiments.
Also, it is a very complicated endeavor to achieve this because of the diversified political culture of various states and different tenures of incumbents in the country. There are also chances for entrenchment of the ruling political party that can have disparate drawbacks for the minor, regional parties.
In conclusion, while ‘One Nation, One Election’ is a revolutionary, reform-minded idea for simplifying the election process significantly in India and facilitating governance stability, its implementation is nuanced. Weight has to be carefully considered in terms of the consequences of democracy, representation, and governance on that. Efficiency has ultimately to be traded against the very democratic principles of providing representation to various voices and issues within the election framework.
