ONE NATION ONE ELECTION

Author – Palak Luthra , a 2nd year BA LLB student at IILM college of law ,greater noida.

ABSTRACT :-

To save money, streamline the procedure, and improve governance, “One Nation, One Election” suggests having simultaneous elections for the Lok Sabha, State Assemblies, and local governments. Despite the possibility of more efficient operations, this concept has drawbacks, such as potential legal issues, threats to federalism, and the difficulty of holding national elections. According to other nations’ examples, this idea necessitates thorough preparation, modifications to the law, and robust political backing. In order to make this reform effective for India’s democracy, this article examines the advantages, issues, and necessary actions.

INTRODUCTION TO ONE NATION, ONE ELECTION:-

Elections are the soul of a democracy, giving people the power to choose their leaders and shape their future. In India, elections happen at many levels — for the Lok Sabha, state assemblies, and local bodies — making it one of the largest and most vibrant democracies in the world. However, the frequent election cycle means that almost every year, somewhere in the country, people are heading to the polls. While this reflects the strength of democracy, it also puts immense pressure on resources, disrupts governance, and keeps governments in campaign mode rather than focusing on long-term development.

The idea of One Nation, One Election aims to address these challenges. It envisions holding elections for the Lok Sabha and all state assemblies at the same time, once every five years. This isn’t a new concept — India followed this practice until 1967 before political shifts led to separate election schedules. Proponents believe that a synchronised system would reduce election-related expenses, free up administrative machinery, and allow leaders to concentrate on governance instead of being caught in continuous election cycles. It promises a more streamlined democratic process that balances the need for electoral vibrancy with the efficiency of governance.

This idea is more than just a change in dates; it is a vision for a more focused and efficient democracy, where elections remain a powerful tool for change but no longer disrupt progress at every turn.

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF “ONE ELECTION, ONE NATION”:-

The idea of “One Election, One Nation” involves holding national and state elections together, aiming to make India’s electoral system more efficient and effective. Here’s why this approach is so important:

  1. Cost Efficiency and Financial Prudence

Elections come with a hefty price tag. From securing polling stations to paying election officials, the cost is high. When national and state elections are held separately, these costs multiply. By synchronising elections, we could reduce these expenses significantly. Resources, like security forces and election materials, could be used more efficiently, saving taxpayers’ money.

  1. Governance and Administrative Stability

Frequent elections can create a sense of instability, as governments are often more focused on campaigning than on delivering results. Simultaneous elections would free up time for elected officials to concentrate on governance and long-term policy decisions, rather than constantly preparing for the next election cycle. This stability could lead to better administration and more consistent development across the country.

  1. Reduction in Political Fragmentation

In India, staggered elections can lead to political fragmentation, with different states having different political agendas at different times. This can sometimes overshadow national issues. Holding simultaneous elections encourages a more unified approach to politics. It gives voters the chance to engage with both local and national issues, strengthening the overall political discourse and promoting national unity.

  1. Curbing Corruption and Malpractices

Elections spread over time create more opportunities for corruption, with the constant need for campaign funding and the temptation to misuse resources. By holding elections together, the cycle of campaign spending is condensed, which can help reduce the misuse of money in politics and curb electoral malpractices, promoting fairness and transparency.

  1. Strengthened Democratic Practices

A big advantage of synchronised elections is the focus on important, issue-based campaigns rather than short-term promises. When elections are held separately, political discourse often becomes narrow and region-specific. With simultaneous elections, the focus shifts to broader, national issues, fostering a healthier and more robust democracy where voters can make informed decisions based on a country-wide perspective.

  1. Enhanced Voter Convenience

The convenience factor for voters is huge. When elections happen frequently, it can be exhausting to participate every few months. With a single election cycle, voters only need to turn up once to cast their vote for both national and state representatives. This could increase voter participation and make the election process more accessible to everyone, especially those who find it difficult to juggle multiple voting dates.

  1. Global Comparisons and Best Practices

Many countries around the world, including the United States and Brazil, already conduct their national and state elections simultaneously. These systems have proven to be efficient and cost-effective. India could learn from these models, adapting them to our needs to create a more streamlined, practical approach to elections.

CHALLENGES AND CONCERNS OF ONE NATION, ONE ELECTION:-

The concept of holding simultaneous elections for both the Lok Sabha (India’s lower house of Parliament) and state legislative assemblies has sparked intense debates across the country. Proponents argue that it could bring about greater efficiency, save costs, and streamline governance. However, there are several challenges and concerns that need careful examination, especially from a legal and practical perspective.

  1. Constitutional and Legal Hurdles

One of the most significant concerns is the challenge to India’s Constitution. Currently, the Constitution does not envision simultaneous elections for the national and state legislatures. For instance, Articles 83 and 172 specify the terms of Lok Sabha and state legislative assemblies, making it clear that these elections are staggered. For ONOE to become a reality, these provisions would need substantial amendment, which raises important questions about the legal and constitutional ramifications. Such a move would require rigorous discussions among lawmakers, legal experts, and the judiciary to ensure it is consistent with the nation’s democratic framework.

  1. Impact on Federalism

India is a federal republic, where states have significant autonomy, especially in governance. One Nation, One Election could potentially disrupt this balance by reducing the political significance of state-level elections. National issues may dominate state campaigns, leaving local issues sidelined. Regional parties, which often focus on state-specific concerns, could find themselves struggling for attention in a system designed to prioritise national discourse. This could undermine the spirit of federalism, as states may feel that their autonomy is being diminished by the centralising effect of simultaneous elections.

  1. Logistical and Managerial Challenges

Managing elections across the entire country in a synchronised manner is an incredibly daunting task. India, with its vast population, diverse regions, and varied voter demographics, faces logistical complexities even in single-phase elections. Holding simultaneous elections would require massive coordination among election commissions, security forces, and administrative bodies. Organising the polling stations, managing electoral rolls, and ensuring security across both urban and remote rural areas would put tremendous strain on the system, making the process susceptible to mishaps and inefficiencies.

  1. Voter Overload and Confusion

Conducting multiple elections at once could overwhelm voters. In the current system, each election focuses on specific issues – local, state, or national – but simultaneous elections may blur these distinctions. Voters could find themselves making decisions on a wide range of topics and candidates, potentially leading to confusion and fatigue. This may lower voter turnout and undermine the democratic process, as people might feel disengaged or unable to make informed choices due to the sheer number of elections taking place at the same time.

  1. Marginalising Regional Parties

Smaller and regional political parties could face significant challenges under the ONOE system. National parties, with their widespread resources and organisational strength, are likely to dominate the election process, while regional parties that focus on local issues might struggle to gain attention. This could diminish the representation of local interests in legislative bodies and marginalise the voices of communities that may not have the same influence at the national level. Over time, this may lead to a uniformity in political representation that undermines the diversity of the electorate.

  1. Financial and Administrative Burden

While ONOE is often touted as a way to reduce election costs, the reality could be different. Organising elections for multiple levels of government simultaneously would require a massive increase in resources, manpower, and logistics. The cost of managing polling stations, deploying security personnel, and coordinating election materials would likely outweigh any potential savings. The added administrative burden could also strain an already overburdened electoral system, leading to delays, errors, and an increased risk of electoral malpractices.

  1. Instability and Risk of Premature Dissolutions

Another concern is the possibility of political instability arising from the simultaneous election system. State assemblies can dissolve before the end of their term, and if a state government loses its majority and calls for fresh elections while the national election cycle is ongoing, it could lead to a confusing political scenario. States might be caught in a situation where national and state-level elections are intertwined, leading to heightened political tensions and instability. Moreover, such an environment could complicate governance, as political uncertainty at the state level could have repercussions on national politics and vice versa.

  1. Public Perception and Trust

Lastly, the public’s perception of ONOE plays a significant role in its potential success or failure. While the idea of saving time and resources might sound appealing, citizens may view the reform as an attempt to consolidate power at the national level, potentially undermining the democratic principles of decentralisation. If the process seems too top-heavy or disproportionately influenced by central authorities, it could lead to a decline in public trust. The diversity of India’s population, with its regional identities and local governance concerns, requires a system that reflects these nuances, rather than one that centralises power too extensively.

CONCLUSION:-

In conclusion, One Nation, One Election is an ambitious idea that aims to streamline India’s electoral process by holding Lok Sabha and state assembly elections together. It promises clear benefits like reducing election costs, minimising disruptions to governance, and making voting easier for citizens. However, it also raises important questions about constitutional changes, the balance of power between the Centre and states, and logistical challenges in managing large-scale elections.

For this vision to become a reality, we need careful planning, open dialogue among political leaders, and strong legal frameworks. If done thoughtfully, it could make our democracy more efficient, stable, and focused on development rather than continuous campaigning. Ultimately, this reform is about making elections work better for the people while respecting the unique spirit of our federal structure.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS:-

  1. What is meant by “One Nation, One Election”? 

What if all of the nation’s elections, from those for Parliament to those for local governments, took place simultaneously? One Nation, One Election is based on that principle. The goal is to save time, money, and effort by holding all elections at the same time.

  1. Why is it generating so much discussion? 

Since  it seems like a sensible solution to lessen the enormous expense and work associated with conducting elections every few months. Consider the enormous financial burden that voting places on the government apparatus and security personnel.

  1. Are there any legal obstacles in the way of this? 

Lots! The Lok Sabha and State Assemblies are referred to by distinct names in the Constitution. To align elections, it would be necessary to change articles such as 83, 172, and 356—which is easier said than done.

  1. Does this happen in any countries? 

Yes! Together, Sweden and South Africa conduct municipal and national elections. Each country has its own system, so what works in one might not be ideal for India.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *