Author: Arya Pandey, Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribag
To the Point
“One Nation, One Election” (ONOE) refers to the proposal of holding simultaneous elections for the Lok Sabha and all State Legislative Assemblies across India. Instead of conducting elections at different times due to varied tenures of governments, ONOE seeks to synchronise the electoral calendar so that elections take place once in a fixed cycle, preferably every five years.
The proposal has generated intense political and constitutional debate. Supporters view it as a reform to ensure efficient governance, reduced public expenditure, and political
stability, while critics argue that it threatens federalism, democratic choice, and constitutional balance. This article examines ONOE through legal, political, and democratic perspectives by analysing its advantages and disadvantages.
As Abraham Lincoln famously said, “Democracy is the government of the people, by the people, for the people.” Any electoral reform must therefore strengthen, not weaken,
democratic participation. Use of Legal Jargon
The proposal of One Nation, One Election (ONOE) engages several foundational principles of Indian constitutional law, including federalism, representative democracy, parliamentary form of government, collective responsibility, separation of powers, and constitutional
morality. The implementation of ONOE would necessitate substantial amendments to key constitutional provisions such as Article 83 (duration of the Lok Sabha), Article 172
(duration of State Legislative Assemblies), Articles 85 and 174 (powers of dissolution), and Article 356 (President’s Rule).
Additionally, statutory changes would be required in the Representation of the People Act, 1951, along with corresponding rules framed under the supervision of the Election
Commission of India, a constitutional authority under Article 324. Any legislative or constitutional amendment enabling ONOE must conform to the Basic Structure Doctrine, as laid down by the Supreme Court, which protects essential features such as federalism, free and fair elections, and democratic governance from being abrogated or diluted.
Further, the doctrine of constitutional supremacy and the principle of judicial review would play a decisive role in determining the constitutional validity of ONOE, particularly if
synchronisation of elections affects state autonomy or voter choice. Therefore, ONOE is not merely an electoral reform but a significant constitutional restructuring requiring strict adherence to established legal doctrines.
Abstract
India, as the world’s largest democracy, conducts elections on a massive scale. Due to unsynchronised electoral cycles, the country witnesses elections almost every year in one state or another. This continuous election process results in frequent imposition of the
Model Code of Conduct, diversion of administrative machinery, rising election expenditure, and governance disruptions.
The idea of One Nation, One Election seeks to resolve these issues by introducing a synchronised electoral system. While the proposal promises cost reduction, administrative efficiency, and policy stability, it simultaneously raises serious concerns about state autonomy, voter behaviour, constitutional amendments, and political pluralism.
This article critically analyses the pros and cons of One Nation, One Election, supported by historical background, judicial pronouncements, and constitutional principles, to assess whether the reform is desirable in a diverse democracy like India.
The Proof
Historical Background
Simultaneous elections are not alien to India’s democratic history. Between 1951 and 1967, elections to the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies were held together. The disruption began after 1967 due to political instability, premature dissolution of state legislatures,
defections, and the imposition of President’s Rule in several states.
Since then, India has moved towards a system of staggered elections. As a result, the Election Commission is required to conduct elections almost every year, increasing administrative and financial burden.
Political philosopher Edmund Burke once said, “A state without the means of some change is without the means of its conservation.” ONOE is often projected as such a change—but whether it conserves democracy or weakens it remains the core question.
Pros of One Nation, One Election
Reduction in Election Expenditure
Elections in India involve enormous expenditure by the government on security forces, polling stations, electronic voting machines, voter awareness campaigns, and logistics. Political parties also spend vast sums on advertisements and campaigning.
Conducting elections simultaneously would significantly reduce repeated expenditure. According to several estimates, ONOE could save thousands of crores of public money. In a developing economy, such savings could be utilised for education, healthcare, and infrastructure development.
As Mahatma Gandhi said, “Earth provides enough to satisfy every man’s needs, but not every man’s greed.” Reducing election extravagance aligns with democratic morality.
Better Governance and Policy Stability
Frequent elections force governments into a permanent campaign mode. Political leaders often announce short-term populist measures to gain electoral advantage, delaying structural reforms.
ONOE would provide governments with a stable tenure, enabling them to focus on long- term policies rather than electoral calculations. Policy continuity is crucial for economic growth, foreign investment, and institutional reform.
Limited Impact of Model Code of Conduct
The Model Code of Conduct (MCC) comes into force during elections, restricting policy announcements and development activities. Due to frequent elections, governance often comes to a standstill in some part of the country.
Simultaneous elections would minimise the repeated imposition of the MCC, ensuring continuous governance and uninterrupted development projects.
Administrative Efficiency
During elections, teachers, police personnel, and civil servants are deployed for election duties, disrupting routine administration. ONOE would significantly reduce administrative diversion, allowing public servants to focus on service delivery.
Max Weber’s idea of a rational bureaucracy emphasises efficiency, which is undermined by repeated election duties.
Higher Voter Turnout
Holding multiple elections at different times leads to voter fatigue. Simultaneous elections may encourage greater participation as voters can cast their votes for both state and central governments in one exercise.
A stronger voter turnout strengthens democratic legitimacy. Cons of One Nation, One Election
Threat to Federalism
India is a quasi-federal state where states enjoy autonomy in governance. Simultaneous elections may shift voter focus towards national issues and leaders, overshadowing regional concerns.
Federalism, as a basic feature of the Constitution, demands respect for state-specific political aspirations.
Constitutional and Legal Challenges
Implementing ONOE requires multiple constitutional amendments, including changes to the tenure of legislatures. Such amendments require ratification by at least half of the states, making political consensus difficult.
Moreover, any amendment violating the basic structure doctrine would be subject to judicial review.
Reduced Democratic Choice
There is a concern that voters may vote for the same political party at both state and national levels, reducing diversity in political representation. This could weaken the essence of representative democracy.
Alexis de Tocqueville warned, “The tyranny of the majority is the greatest danger of democratic government.”
Problem of Premature Dissolution
If a government collapses mid-term, maintaining synchronisation becomes difficult. Either President’s Rule would have to be imposed, or the tenure of a new government curtailed, both of which raise democratic concerns.
Logistical and Security Concerns
Conducting elections across the country at once would require massive deployment of security forces, EVMs, and polling personnel. Any failure could affect the credibility of elections.
Case Laws
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
Established the basic structure doctrine, limiting Parliament’s amending power.
S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)
Strengthened federalism and restricted misuse of Article 356.
Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)
Declared free and fair elections as a basic feature of democracy.
Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker (2016)
Emphasised constitutional morality and stability of elected governments. Conclusion
One Nation, One Election is a reform with far-reaching constitutional and political
consequences. While it promises efficiency, reduced expenditure, and stable governance, it also poses risks to federalism, democratic diversity, and constitutional balance.
As Jawaharlal Nehru rightly said, “Democracy is good. I say this because other systems are worse.” Any reform must therefore improve democracy, not centralise it.
ONOE should be implemented only after wide political consensus, constitutional safeguards, and phased execution. Without these, the reform may undermine the very democratic values it seeks to strengthen.
FAQS
Q1. What is One Nation, One Election?
It is a proposal to hold simultaneous elections for Lok Sabha and State Assemblies.
Q2. Is ONOE constitutional?
It requires constitutional amendments and must not violate the basic structure doctrine.
Q3. What is the main benefit of ONOE?
Reduction in election expenditure and governance disruptions.
Q4. What is the biggest concern?
Threat to federalism and democratic choice.
Q5. Can ONOE be implemented gradually?
Yes, experts suggest a phased and consensual approach.
