The concept of One nation one election has its own prospects and limitations in India Examine
India is the world’s largest
democracy. Every year, millions of voters take part in elections at different
levels – for the Lok Sabha (Parliament), State Assemblies, Municipal
Corporations, Panchayats, and other local bodies. These frequent
elections are a sign of democratic strength, but they also create challenges.
The idea of “One Nation, One
Election” (ONOE) means that elections for the Lok Sabha and all State
Assemblies should be held at the same time, once every five years. This
proposal has been debated in India for many years. Some people see it as a way
to save money and bring stability, while others fear it may weaken democracy
and federalism. we will examine the concept in detail, look at its prospects
(advantages) and limitations (challenges), and discuss whether it
can work in India.
Background
of the Idea
1.Past
practice:
o
In the first two decades after
Independence, India actually followed simultaneous elections.
o
From 1951 to 1967, both
Parliament and State Assemblies were elected together.
o
But later, because of political
instability, early dissolutions of Assemblies, and mid-term polls, the
cycle was broken.
2.Recent
discussions:
o
The idea has been raised many times
by different governments.
o
The Law Commission, the Election
Commission of India (ECI), and several parliamentary committees have
studied it.
o
The current government has given
strong support to the concept, and a High-Level Committee under former
President Ram Nath Kovind was formed in 2023 to examine its feasibility.
Prospects (Advantages) of One Nation, One Election
1.Cost
Savings:
o
Conducting elections in India is
very expensive.
o
The government spends billions of
rupees on polling staff, security forces, EVMs, and logistics.
o
Political parties also spend large
amounts on campaigning.
o
If elections happen only once every
five years, the overall cost will reduce significantly.
2.Less
Disruption of Governance:
o
During elections, the Model Code
of Conduct (MCC) is enforced, which limits new policy announcements.
o
Frequent elections mean the MCC is
applied again and again, slowing down development work.
o
With simultaneous polls, governance
will continue more smoothly.
3.Reduced
Political Polarization:
o
Continuous elections keep parties in
“campaign mode” throughout the year.
o
This increases political conflicts
and populist policies.
o
One common election may reduce such
polarization and allow leaders to focus on governance.
4.Increased
Voter Turnout:
o
When elections happen together,
voters may feel more motivated to participate in one big national exercise.
o
It saves time and effort for voters,
especially in rural areas where travel to polling stations is difficult.
5.Better
Use of Security and Administrative Resources:
o
Elections require large numbers of
police, paramilitary, and administrative staff.
o
Frequent deployment affects normal
law-and-order duties.
o
A single election would free these
resources for other important work.
6.Stability
in Policies:
o
Frequent elections push governments
to focus on short-term promises.
o
A fixed 5-year cycle can promote
long-term policy-making in fields like infrastructure, education, and health.
Limitations (Challenges) of One Nation, One Election
1.Constitutional
and Legal Hurdles:
o
The Indian Constitution provides for
both Parliament and State Assemblies, but their terms can end at different
times.
o
If a State Assembly is dissolved
early, how will it fit into the common cycle?
o
To implement ONOE, major
constitutional amendments would be required, needing approval from both
Parliament and State Assemblies.
2.Federalism
Concerns:
o
India is a federal country,
where States have their own governments.
o
Holding national and state elections
together may reduce the importance of local issues, as national issues
dominate.
o
This could weaken the voice of
states and disturb the balance of federalism.
3.Practical
Difficulties:
o
India has over 90 crore (900
million) voters and more than a million polling stations.
o
Conducting such a massive election
at one time would be a huge administrative challenge.
o
Managing resources like EVMs,
security forces, and polling staff for simultaneous elections may be extremely
difficult.
4.Risk
of Mid-Term Dissolutions:
o
If a government at the Centre or in
a State loses majority mid-way, should fresh elections be held immediately?
o
If yes, the entire cycle breaks. If
not, it may lead to governments without popular mandate for long
periods.
5.Impact
on Regional Parties:
o
Regional parties focus on local
issues like farming, water, or language.
o
In simultaneous elections, national
issues like security or economy may overshadow local concerns.
o
This may weaken regional parties and
reduce political diversity.
6.Voter
Confusion:
o
If elections for Parliament and
Assemblies are held on the same day, voters may get confused between the two.
o
Research shows that many voters may
vote for the same party at both levels, even if their local choice is
different.
o
This could reduce the independent
functioning of state politics.
7.Economic
Disruption:
o
Elections are costly, but they also
create jobs for lakhs of people temporarily.
o
A single election may reduce such
opportunities for workers, contractors, and local businesses.
Expert
Views
- Supporters
argue that ONOE will make democracy more efficient, reduce wasteful
expenditure, and bring stability.
- Critics
argue that democracy is not just about efficiency, but also about giving
people chances to express their voice. Frequent elections ensure
governments remain accountable at all times.
Possible
Alternatives
Instead of full simultaneous
elections, India could consider:
1.Two-Phase
Elections:
o
Conduct Lok Sabha and half the
States together, and the remaining States mid-way.
o
This will reduce frequency without
making everything depend on one election.
2.Fixed
Election Windows:
o
All elections should be held within
a fixed 6-month window, rather than spreading over years.
3.Strengthening
Governance During Elections:
o
Even if frequent elections continue,
steps can be taken to reduce the negative impact of MCC on governance.
The idea of One Nation, One
Election has both prospects and limitations. It promises cost
savings, smoother governance, and political stability, but it also faces
serious constitutional, federal, and practical challenges.
India is a very large and diverse
democracy. For such a reform, there must be broad political consensus,
careful planning, and detailed legal changes. It cannot be rushed.
A balanced approach may be
better—reducing election frequency without compromising the spirit of
federalism and democratic accountability. Ultimately, the goal should be to
strengthen Indian democracy, not just to make it cheaper or simpler.
.jpg)
0 Comments