One Nation, One Election: Weigh its feasibility

The Union Government has notified an eight-member high-level committee to examine the proposal for holding elections simultaneously to the Union as well as all states and local bodies and make recommendations. This proposal has been doing the rounds for years now. The idea of simultaneous elections was first proposed by the Election Commission of India (ECI) in 1983. The Law Commission had recommended simultaneous elections in 1999, and again in 2018. The BJP’s LK Advani had also supported the idea in 2010, in a blog post. The matter was examined by a parliamentary standing committee in December 2015 and was also referred to the ECI. Both supported it in principle while pointing out the difficulties. In 2017, the Niti Aayog released a paper titled ‘Election Time Table’, discussing the feasibility of simultaneous elections.

The biggest issue is the constitutional hurdles. Crucially, in a country where each state follows its own political course, federalism can potentially take a hit in simultaneous elections.

The concerns raised are valid and warrant serious deliberation. At their forefront is the escalating cost associated with electoral contests, which has reached unprecedented heights. The 2019 General Election is a glaring example, setting a record for being India’s most expensive election, with an astounding expenditure of approximately Rs 60,000 crore.

Further, the frequent occurrence of elections has a significant impact on the functioning of the government, disrupting the rhythm of civic life. The crux of this issue lies in the activation of the Model Code of Conduct as soon as the ECI announces the election dates. Under this framework, the government is prohibited from announcing new schemes during this period, which leads to what is referred to as ‘policy paralysis’. In addition, the government is restrained from making new appointments or transferring officials as the entirety of its manpower becomes entrenched in the execution of election-related tasks. This impedes governance and administration, creating a cumbersome environment that hampers progress.

It is equally pertinent to underscore the adverse consequences of frequent elections on the social fabric of the nation. During the electoral seasons, communalism, casteism and corruption reach their zenith, casting a dark shadow over the political landscape. The relentless cycle of elections offers no respite from these maladies, perpetuating their corrosive influence on the country’s polity and society. This has had a palpable impact on the political discourse, as evidenced during the 2019 General Election, where these divisive forces were more pronounced than ever, exacerbating societal discord.

From the ECI’s perspective, simultaneous elections hold a significant benefit. Considering that the same polling booths, staff and security personnel serve all levels of elections, simultaneous elections do appear to be a more efficient and cost-effective proposition. However, it does involve logistical and administrative problems, like requiring three times the number of EVMs/VVPATs, some more polling staff and security men. It’s also important to remember that local government elections are the domain of the State Election Commission, which is an independent constitutional body and not subordinate to the ECI. Smooth coordination between the two cannot be taken for granted.

The biggest issue is the constitutional hurdles. Crucially, in a country where each state follows its own political course, federalism can potentially take a hit in simultaneous elections. What is one to do, for example, if a particular state witnesses an upturned majority after a few MLAs decide to shift ‘loyalties’? How are simultaneous elections to be continued in such a scenario? Likewise, how will ‘one nation, one election’ work in case of a premature dissolution of the Lok Sabha, for instance, as happened in the 1990s, when the House was dissolved long before its term of five years was over? In such an eventuality, would we also dissolve all the state Assemblies? This sounds unworkable, both in theory and in practice, for a democracy.

Further, at least five Articles of the Constitution — 83, 85, 172, 174 and 356 — and the Tenth Schedule would have to be amended, besides changes in the Representation of the People Act, 1951. This would mean a lengthy and challenging process, requiring political consensus across both the Houses of Parliament and the consent of the states.

Many argue that frequent elections are, in fact, beneficial in ensuring accountability. Politicians are notorious for disappearing once an election is over. Frequent elections at least ensure that they ‘show their face’ to the people regularly. Besides, election time results in the creation of work opportunities at the grassroots level. Finally, separate elections at the three tiers ensure that local, regional and national issues do not get mixed up.

There is an alternative route to achieving the desired objectives of reducing costs and duration of the election period.

First, the problem of uncontrolled campaign expenditure can be remedied by introducing a cap on the election expenditure incurred by political parties, as exists in the UK. Second, the poll duration can be reduced from the current two to three months to about a month if more Central armed police forces can be provided. The enhanced problems associated with a multi-phased election, such as the spread of rumours, hate speech and violence, can be eliminated if the poll is conducted in one day.

Critics say that the composition of the committee is problematic as its members’ affiliations, with most having ties with the ruling BJP, raise questions about impartiality. A former President heading a sarkari committee is prima facie improper, considering that the report will eventually be examined by clerks in the Law Ministry.

Implementing such a sweeping change in the electoral system would require careful deliberation, a broad consensus and meticulous planning to ensure its successful execution, while preserving the essence of democracy and the spirit of federalism which is a basic structure of the Constitution, as pointed out by the Law Commission in 2018.