Author: Ashok Kumar Ratan, Assam University
Abstract
“One Nation, One Election” proposes conducting simultaneous elections for the Lok Sabha and all State Legislative Assemblies across India. This article delves into the origins, feasibility, advantages, challenges, and constitutional implications of the proposal. It critically analyses whether this electoral reform would strengthen the democratic process or threaten federalism and regional representation. Drawing on historical practices, legal frameworks, and expert opinions, the article evaluates the practicality of implementing such a system and suggests a way forward.
Introduction
India is the world’s largest democracy, with frequent national and state elections forming a core aspect of its democratic functioning. However, the recurring cycle of elections has sparked a growing discourse around the idea of synchronizing elections across the country. Known as “One Nation, One Election,” this proposal has generated both enthusiasm and skepticism within political and legal circles.
Advocates argue that it can reduce election expenditure, improve governance, and create a stable policy environment, while critics worry it may undermine India’s federal structure and strain the electoral machinery. This article offers a critical assessment of the proposal’s implications and feasibility.
Historical Background
Simultaneous elections were held in India from 1951 to 1967. During this period, Lok Sabha and State Assembly elections were conducted together, and the electoral cycles were largely in sync. Holding elections at different times leads to huge government spending, pulls security forces and election staff away from their regular duties for long stretches, and interrupts ongoing development work due to the enforcement of the Model Code of Conduct. Because of these challenges, the Law Commission of India, in its 170th Report on Electoral Reforms, suggested that the government should think about a system where elections to the Lok Sabha and all State Legislative Assemblies happen at the same time. One Nation One Election. Under One Nation One Election, elections will be held only once every five years for both the Lok Sabha and all the Legislative Assemblies throughout the country.
The idea of reverting to synchronized elections resurfaced in recent years, particularly following discussions by the Election Commission of India, the Law Commission (2018), and the NITI Aayog. These institutions have explored the logistical, financial, and constitutional aspects of the reform. Their findings suggest that while simultaneous elections are desirable in theory, they would require comprehensive planning, consensus, and phased execution.
Arguments in Favor of One Nation, One Election
a) Cost Efficiency
India’s electoral process is a massive logistical and financial endeavor. Every election incurs substantial costs related to election staff, security, logistics, voter education, and infrastructure. Simultaneous elections could cut these costs drastically by reducing the frequency of mobilizing such large-scale operations. For instance, conducting Lok Sabha and Assembly elections separately means duplicating expenses for EVMs, security deployment, and administrative tasks every few months. A synchronized approach could optimize resource allocation and ensure better fiscal management.
Moreover, elections disrupt the economy by affecting productivity, especially in states where electoral codes halt ongoing projects. Reducing the number of elections would prevent these repetitive halts and provide more stable economic momentum.
b) Administrative Convenience
The continuous cycle of elections forces administrative and law enforcement agencies to remain in a state of constant readiness. This disrupts normal governance and diverts resources from developmental work. Simultaneous elections would allow the bureaucracy to focus on governance without frequent interruptions, thereby enhancing policy implementation and public service delivery.
Additionally, it would reduce the burden on teachers and other government staff often deputed for electoral duties, allowing them to concentrate on their primary responsibilities. With less frequent deployment of security forces for electoral purposes, law and order can be better maintained year-round. It would also provide the Election Commission more time to focus on improving the quality and integrity of elections rather than constantly managing schedules.
c) Policy Continuity
Governments are often hesitant to introduce long-term policies or structural reforms when elections are around the corner, fearing political backlash. This leads to policy stagnation and a shift toward populist schemes that prioritize short-term electoral gains.
Synchronizing elections would give governments the confidence to take bold decisions early in their tenure without constantly worrying about electoral consequences. This could lead to more meaningful and transformative governance. A stable tenure with predictable timelines may also encourage long-term collaborations with international investors and development agencies, as policy direction would be more consistent and less likely to shift with each state election.
d) Reduced Political Polarization
Frequent elections encourage political parties to remain in campaign mode throughout the year, increasing political rhetoric and polarization. Holding elections together could reduce the intensity of divisive campaigning, foster issue-based politics, and encourage long-term political planning.
It could also reduce the frequency of the Model Code of Conduct, which often delays critical developmental projects. With reduced disruptions, the focus of governance and political discourse may shift more toward performance and accountability, rather than short-term electoral appeasement. Moreover, it would relieve citizens from excessive exposure to political advertisements and campaign fatigue, which currently dominate media and public space.
Simultaneous elections could also help in curbing the use of black money in politics, as large and repeated expenditures on elections across states would be curtailed, and tighter monitoring could be implemented on a single synchronized electoral event.
Arguments Against One Nation, One Election
a) Federalism at Risk
India’s Constitution is federal in spirit, with significant autonomy granted to states in matters of governance. Uniform elections could overshadow regional voices and allow national parties to dominate state-level discourse. Regional issues may be lost in the national narrative, weakening state accountability and the principle of decentralized governance.
Furthermore, simultaneous elections might reduce the scope for regional parties to assert themselves, as national narratives could monopolize public attention. This could shift the political balance in favor of larger, better-funded parties with broader outreach, thereby weakening India’s diverse political ecosystem. Such centralization risks diluting the very essence of India’s democratic structure, where local governance and representation are vital for addressing grassroots issues.
b) Logistical and Security Challenges
Simultaneous elections across 28 states and 8 union territories, along with national elections, would require enormous resources—millions of EVMs, VVPATs, security personnel, and polling staff. Ensuring that all regions are adequately equipped and secure during a single election cycle is a monumental task. Moreover, risks such as natural disasters, insurgency, or regional instability could jeopardize the entire electoral process if all elections are held at once.
The challenge becomes even more daunting in remote or conflict-prone areas, where ensuring free and fair elections already poses a significant burden. Managing security logistics on such a scale also increases the vulnerability to coordinated threats or cyberattacks. Additionally, delays in transporting materials or personnel to certain locations could cause logistical bottlenecks, risking the credibility and efficiency of the electoral process.
c) Synchronization Dilemma
Aligning all electoral terms would require either curtailing the tenure of some state assemblies or extending others—both of which raise serious constitutional and ethical concerns. Imposing President’s Rule or delaying elections to accommodate synchronization may be perceived as undemocratic. Furthermore, in the event of a no-confidence motion or coalition breakdown, mid-term polls would again disrupt the cycle, making synchronization difficult to sustain in the long run.
These disruptions would create legal complexities and raise questions about the sanctity of the electoral mandate. The current constitutional framework does not provide for flexible adjustments to tenure simply for synchronization purposes. Therefore, achieving and maintaining alignment may necessitate constant tinkering with the electoral calendar, thereby undermining political stability and public trust in democratic institutions.
d) Voter Confusion and Overload
When national and state elections are held together, voters may be overwhelmed by the sheer volume of information and choices. There is a risk that they might not differentiate between central and state issues, leading to uniform voting patterns for both levels of government.
This could harm democratic decision-making and undermine accountability by blurring the distinction between local and national concerns.
Voters could be more likely to vote based on the performance of national leaders while ignoring the track records of local MLAs or state-specific issues. This phenomenon, known as the “coattail effect,” may lead to unfair electoral advantages for dominant parties and erode the value of independent evaluation of state governments. Additionally, campaign discourse may become diluted as candidates struggle to communicate distinct agendas amidst a crowded and fast-paced electoral environment.
Moreover, conducting simultaneous elections may lead to higher cognitive burdens on voters, especially those with lower literacy or less access to political information. This risks increasing invalid votes and distorting electoral outcomes. Consequently, the quality of democratic engagement and electoral literacy could decline, weakening the democratic foundation rather than strengthening it.
Legal and Constitutional Challenges
Implementing the concept of One Nation, One Election requires significant legal restructuring and constitutional amendments. At present, the Indian Constitution does not mandate or support a synchronized election calendar for the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies.
Therefore, transforming this concept into a legally enforceable framework involves overcoming multiple legal, constitutional, and procedural hurdles.
a) Constitutional Amendments Required
The foremost challenge is the need to amend several key provisions of the Constitution. Articles such as:
Article 83(2): which fixes the term of the Lok Sabha at five years from the date of its first sitting.
Article 172(1): which prescribes a similar five-year term for State Legislative Assemblies.
Article 174: which empowers the Governor to dissolve the State Assembly.
Article 356: which allows for the imposition of President’s Rule in a state under certain conditions.
All these provisions would require amendments to allow early dissolution or extension of terms in order to align election cycles. Such amendments are not minor—they require a two-thirds majority in both Houses of Parliament and ratification by at least half of the state legislatures under Article 368 of the Constitution. Given India’s multi-party and federal setup, building this level of consensus across states with differing political interests is a complex and politically sensitive task.
b) Impact on Federal Structure
The proposal raises concerns about infringing upon the federal character of the Constitution. The ability of states to operate on independent electoral timelines is a crucial element of India’s federalism. Imposing a uniform election cycle might centralize political authority and weaken state autonomy. Critics argue that it may allow the central government undue influence over the functioning and electoral processes of state governments, thereby violating the principle of “cooperative federalism.”
Furthermore, the Supreme Court of India has, through various judgments, reaffirmed the importance of maintaining the balance of power between the Centre and the States. Any alteration to this equilibrium would likely invite constitutional scrutiny and judicial intervention.
c) Revisions to Existing Laws
Beyond constitutional changes, several statutes would need to be reworked:
The Representation of the People Act, 1951, which governs the conduct of elections, would require comprehensive changes to accommodate uniform electoral cycles.
Rules related to vacancies, by-elections, and the disqualification of members would also need to be synchronized under a new legal framework to prevent overlapping or contradictions.
Provisions regarding the Model Code of Conduct, election funding limits, and campaign regulations might also require a unified approach to ensure fairness and clarity during a simultaneous electoral process.
d) Judicial Oversight and Challenges
The judiciary is likely to play a pivotal role in assessing the validity of these changes. Legal petitions may arise questioning the legality of curtailing or extending the term of an elected legislature, arguing it violates democratic principles. The courts may also be called upon to interpret whether synchronization undermines the spirit of universal adult franchise and representative democracy enshrined in the Constitution.
There’s also the concern that if mid-term dissolutions continue to occur—as they naturally do in coalition politics—then synchronized elections could quickly fall out of sync again, necessitating further legal interventions or exceptions, thereby creating instability in the legal framework.
e) President’s Rule and Emergency Provisions
A significant ethical concern lies in how synchronization may necessitate the use or misuse of Article 356 (President’s Rule) to suspend a state government to align it with the national election calendar. This raises alarms about the possible politicization of constitutional powers and their manipulation for electoral convenience. The historical misuse of President’s Rule in the 1970s and 1980s serves as a cautionary tale of how such powers can undermine democracy when not used with restraint.
f) Need for a Constitutional Convention or Expert Committee
Due to the complexity of the legal and constitutional changes involved, there is growing consensus that the matter should be referred to a Constitutional Convention or a high-powered Expert Committee comprising constitutional scholars, former judges, members of the Election Commission, and representatives of political parties. Their recommendations could help chart a roadmap that respects constitutional values, legal integrity, and practical feasibility.
6. Global Comparisons Several countries conduct simultaneous national and regional elections, offering valuable insights into the feasibility and challenges of such a system.
a) South Africa South Africa conducts its national, provincial, and municipal elections at regular intervals, though not always on the same day. National and provincial elections are usually held together. The Electoral Commission of South Africa oversees this process, ensuring efficient use of resources and public engagement. However, South Africa’s political system is more centralized, making it easier to coordinate elections across regions.
b) Sweden Sweden holds national and local elections simultaneously every four years. This synchronization contributes to higher voter turnout and lower election-related expenses. Sweden’s relatively smaller size, homogenous population, and strong institutional capacity make this model effective. However, it is less applicable to India’s vast and diverse federal structure.
c) Indonesia: Indonesia adopted simultaneous elections in 2019, combining presidential, parliamentary, and regional elections in one day. Though it improved efficiency, it also faced criticism due to logistical difficulties and voter fatigue. Reports indicated that over 500 election workers died due to exhaustion and workload. This example underscores the importance of adequate preparation and infrastructure.
d) United States and Canada Both countries follow staggered electoral systems. In the U.S., federal, state, and local elections are held at different times, allowing for continuous democratic engagement. Canada also holds elections at various levels independently. These systems ensure regional representation and flexibility but at the cost of repeated election cycles and higher expenses.
India’s situation aligns more closely with the U.S. and Canada in terms of federalism and diversity. Therefore, imposing a uniform election calendar may not yield the same outcomes as observed in smaller or unitary nations.
Suggestions and Way Forward
Phased Implementation: Start with synchronizing elections in select states whose assembly terms are near the general elections.
Constitutional Amendments: Build political consensus for required constitutional changes while safeguarding federal principles.
Technological Readiness: Invest in infrastructure, EVMs, and secure digital systems to manage large-scale simultaneous elections.
Voter Education: Conduct awareness campaigns to help voters distinguish between national and state-level issues.
Consensus Building: Involve all political parties, legal experts, and Election Commission officials to ensure a transparent, inclusive roadmap.
Conclusion The idea of “One Nation, One Election” is visionary but fraught with practical, legal, and democratic challenges. While it promises efficiency, cost savings, and better governance continuity, it risks undermining India’s federal framework, regional autonomy, and the richness of political diversity.
Rather than pursuing full-scale implementation in haste, India should adopt a cautious, phased approach based on consensus and constitutional morality. A robust democratic process must accommodate both national unity and regional plurality—striking this balance is key to realizing the true spirit of Indian democracy.
FAQS
How might this affect state autonomy?
A: Critics argue that simultaneous elections may centralize political power and marginalize state-specific issues, thereby diluting the federal structure guaranteed by the Constitution.
What is the role of the Election Commission in this process?
A: The Election Commission would be responsible for planning and conducting the elections. It has expressed support for the idea in principle but emphasized the need for legal and political consensus and logistical preparation.
