Introduction
Imagine living in a country where elections happen almost every year. Campaign rallies flood the streets, leaders announce last-minute schemes, and governance often takes a backseat. This is not imagination—it’s India’s reality.
The proposal at a glance
The proposal is bold and attractive. It promises cost savings, less disruption to governance, and a more focused government. But beneath the surface, it raises uncomfortable questions about federalism, diversity, and whether India’s democracy is ready for such a shift.
Why the idea appeals
The argument for simultaneous elections rests on three strong pillars:
-
Saving money and resources
Conducting separate elections every few months drains the exchequer. The 2019 Lok Sabha elections alone cost over ₹60,000 crore. Add assembly polls to that, and the numbers become staggering. Security forces, government staff, and administrative machinery are stretched thin each time.
-
Avoiding the “election mode” trap
India is often said to be in a permanent election cycle. Every few months, one state or another goes to polls, and the Model Code of Conduct kicks in. This halts policy decisions and development schemes. If elections happen together, governance could run more smoothly.
-
Reducing populism and black money
Frequent elections often encourage short-term freebies and the circulation of unaccounted money. Supporters believe simultaneous elections could check these practices.
The constitutional roadblock
Here’s where the dream meets reality. India’s Constitution fixes the tenure of legislatures:
- Article 83(2) – Lok Sabha lasts for five years unless dissolved earlier.
- Article 172 – State Assemblies have the same five-year cycle.
But in practice, governments collapse mid-way. To synchronize all elections, Parliament would need to amend several provisions of the Constitution. This is no small task—it requires a two-thirds majority in both Houses and ratification by half of the states under Article 368.
Judicial and expert voices
The debate is not new. The Law Commission (1999 and 2018 reports) supported simultaneous elections in principle, but warned that without consensus, it could destabilize democracy.
Courts too have shown caution. While the Supreme Court has entertained petitions on ONOE, it has consistently pointed out that it is a legislative decision, not a judicial one.
What the world can teach us
Countries like South Africa and Sweden conduct national and provincial elections together, ensuring efficiency. But their systems are more politically stable, with fewer coalition breakdowns. India’s reality is different—fragile coalitions and shifting alliances are common. The fear is that if one government falls mid-term, should the entire country go to polls again?
The concerns critics raise
Critics of ONOE are not just being cynical. Their worries are grounded in India’s political reality:
- Erosion of federalism: India is not a monolith. States often vote on local issues, separate from national politics. Merging elections might overshadow regional concerns under the weight of national campaigns.
- Democratic accountability: Frequent elections, though costly, give voters multiple opportunities to hold governments accountable. A single election every five years could weaken this check.
- Logistical nightmare: Conducting elections for 90+ crore voters in one go would test the limits of the Election Commission, EVMs, security forces, and manpower.
Searching for a middle path
The idea doesn’t have to be all or nothing. Reforms could strike a balance:
- Phased alignment: States nearing their election cycles could be gradually synced with Lok Sabha polls.
- Fixed tenures: Assemblies and the Lok Sabha could be given fixed terms, with exceptions only in extreme cases like national emergencies.
- Stronger Election Commission: Empowering the ECI to handle the scale and ensuring neutrality is non-negotiable.
Conclusion
“One Nation, One Election” is more than just a logistical reform—it is a reimagination of India’s democracy. It holds the promise of efficiency and reduced costs, but it also risks weakening federalism and silencing regional voices.
India thrives on diversity, and our electoral system reflects that. Any attempt to streamline it must ensure that efficiency does not come at the cost of democratic depth. As Dr. B.R. Ambedkar once said,
“Democracy is not a form of government, but a form of social organization.”
The challenge, then, is to design reforms that serve governance without undermining the very spirit of democracy.
