Convenience or Compromise?

The debate surrounding One Nation, One Election is once again in the spotlight, igniting discussions across India’s political landscape. Proponents of this concept argue that synchronizing elections for the Lok Sabha and all state assemblies could streamline governance, reduce electoral expenses, and prevent the policy paralysis that often comes with frequent elections. 

Yet, while simultaneous elections may appear efficient at first glance, such “stunts” raise crucial concerns about the health of India’s democracy and the fundamental federal structure that supports it. 

Historically, ONOE was the norm in India until 1967, when elections for the Lok Sabha and state assemblies were conducted at the same time. The rationale behind this concept is to alleviate the financial and administrative burdens of frequent elections.  

Critics argue that the pursuit of efficiency blinds us to the intricate mosaic that is India’s political system. With 28 states and 8 Union territories, India thrives on its federal framework, where local governments have distinct mandates, timelines, and priorities. The idea of synchronized elections threatens to concentrate power at the center, drowning out the voices of the states and eroding their constitutional autonomy. 

India’s strength undoubtedly lies in its diversity, and staggered elections reflect this by allowing regional issues to take center stage. It ensures that local voices are heard, and state-specific concerns aren’t overshadowed by the roar of national politics. To flatten this dynamic with a one-size-fits-all approach risks silencing the very essence of what makes Indian democracy, a democracy. 

On September 28, at a DMK meeting in Kancheepuram celebrating the party's 75th anniversary, DMK president and Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Stalin criticized the BJP-led government for promoting ONOE while struggling to conduct even a single-phase election in Kashmir. He pointedly remarked, "Those who can't conduct a one-phase election are advocating One Nation, One Election. Are you not ashamed?" His comments echo broader concerns that centralizing elections may overlook regional realities, weakening the democratic process. 

AAP MP Sandeep Pathak also raised the question, "A few days ago, elections for four states were to be announced, but they (BJP) announced elections for only Haryana and J&K and left Maharashtra and Jharkhand. If they cannot conduct elections in four states simultaneously, how will they manage simultaneous elections in the whole country? What if a state government falls before completing its full term? Will the President's rule be imposed in that state?" 

The claim that One Nation, One Election would result in significant cost savings doesn't hold up either. According to estimates from the Election Commission and NITI Aayog, ONOE would save only around Rs 5 per voter per year—a very small amount. It's unreasonable to argue that such minimal savings justify disrupting India’s federal structure. Sacrificing regional autonomy and local governance for such a small financial benefit seems unnecessary, especially when the integrity of the country’s democratic system is at stake. 

Additionally, the need for around 40 lakhs extra Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) presents significant financial and logistical obstacles. The Election Commission has indicated that three times the usual number of EVMs and VVPATs will be necessary, which could cost thousands of crores. 

Another key concern is the composition of the committee set up to explore ONOE, chaired by former President Ram Nath Kovind. For a concept that could fundamentally alter India's democracy, it’s notable that no sitting Chief Ministers or opposition leaders were included in the panel. This raises important questions about transparency and whether diverse political perspectives are being deliberately excluded from a debate that affects the entire country. 

In a democracy like India, where political fragmentation often leads to hung assemblies, the synchronization of national and state elections presents serious concerns. If a state encounters a hung assembly or a government collapse, what guarantees exist that the system won’t break down again?  

Moreover, syncing elections could mean that if a state’s government falls, it would be placed under President’s Rule until the next synchronized election, disenfranchising voters for extended periods. This could further erode democratic representation and accountability at the state level, complicating governance and exacerbating political instability.  

Ultimately, the potential for hung assemblies, defections, and political shifts indicates that One Nation, One Election lacks the flexibility needed for India’s complex democracy. As we contemplate this significant change, we must prioritize the values of representation, diversity, and local governance that are fundamental to our democratic fabric. 

One Nation, One Election simply risks flattening the country’s democracy for the sake of so-called convenience. Since its inception, the BJP has made several bold claims—whether it was demonetization or other major policies—often presented as transformative solutions. This latest so-called "masterstroke," One Nation, One Election appears to be yet another attempt to mislead the public with a dramatic but misguided proposal.