Introduction to One Nation, One Election
The ‘One Nation, One Election‘ report has been approved by the Union Cabinet, which is headed by Prime Minister Narendra Modi. This idea aims to evenly hold simultaneous elections for the Lok Sabha, State Assemblies, and local authorities following a national effort to form an agreement. The shift to simultaneous elections would take place in two stages: local body elections would be covered in the second phase, which would take place within 100 days of the first phase, while Lok Sabha and assembly elections would be synchronized in the first.
Its supporters think it will reduce expenses, increase effectiveness, and increase voter turnout. Yet, there are major practical and constitutional hitches to execution. As part of electoral reforms, the simultaneous polling problem has been raised in the election manifestos of the Bharatiya Janata Party.
The government moved on with its ‘One Nation, One Election’ plan on Wednesday 18, September 2024, accepting the recommendations of a high-level panel for gradual simultaneous elections to the Lok Sabha, state assemblies, and local authorities. The report was turned in by the panel led by the former president Ram Nath Kovind in March, just before the Lok Sabha polls were announced. This panel was not charged to confute the pros and cons of the idea; rather, its task was to make specific implementation recommendations.
As required, the committee delivered a thorough report in record time. After being notified on September 2, 2023, it spent 191 days researching the topic and on March 14, 2024, it released its 18,626-page report. Its membership comprised distinguished individuals from various backgrounds. It sought recommendations from political parties with official status as well as legal specialists, such as former chief justices, state election commissioners, and chief election commissioners. The public was also requested to submit suggestions.
There was a chance for the Bar Council of India, Confederation of Indian Industry, Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry, and so on to voice their point of view. 47 political parties also responded, with 32 supporting the system and 15 criticizing it as anti-federal and anti-democratic. The opposition political parties voiced concerns that it would lead to a presidential system of government, promote the supremacy of national parties, and marginalize regional parties. An analysis was overseen using these inputs and in-depth research as a basis.
The 32 parties who backed the measure were either friendly parties or partners of the Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) in the National Democratic Alliance (NDA). Telugu Desam Party, an NDA ally that did not provide the panel with an opinion, has stated that it supports the move in theory. And, five of the fifteen parties contrary to simultaneous polling are opposition parties that do not belong to the NDA and are in power in several states, including Congress.
The Constitutional Amendments Required for Implementation
The Kovind panel has suggested changing a few provisions of the Constitution to allow for nationwide elections to be held at the same time. This includes some changes to Article 172, which addresses the duration of state assemblies, and Article 83, which specifies the Lok Sabha’s term of office.
At least half of the states must affirm the constitutional revisions, which must have a two-thirds majority in Parliament, to put into effect simultaneous elections. Amendments to the Representation of People’s Act, 1951, with changes to key provisions such as 83, 85(2)(B), 174(2)(B), 356, and 75(3), offer compelling face-off. It is apparent that at the next winter session of Parliament, bills to this effect will be introduced.
Separate elections are a waste of money, in line with those who favor simultaneous elections. At the same time, most expert opinions agreed that the Constitution and related laws would need to be amended, they also insist that these changes would not be anti-federal, anti-democratic, or hostile to the fundamental framework of the Constitution, nor would they lead to a presidential system of government.
Political Landscape: Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha Numbers
The Scene in the Lok Sabha
Unlike its two previous terms, the BJP does not hold a majority in the Lok Sabha. To get the laws enacted, it will rely on friendly parties and its NDA allies. The political parties that are in favor of the “One Nation, One Election” idea have 271 members in the lower house of the Lok Sabha, with 240 of them belonging to the Bharatiya Janata Party. In the Lok Sabha, this is just one vote short of a 271 simple majority.
205 Lok Sabha MPs are represented by the 15 parties that disagree with simultaneous polling while voicing their concerns to the commission. 203 MPs from the opposing INDIA group were among them. There are 234 Lok Sabha MPs who are part of the INDIA bloc and the parties that did not give their opinions to the panel.
With 293 MPs in the Lok Sabha, the NDA is joined by the TDP and other parties that have so far remained impartial throughout the simultaneous polls. To get the measures enacted, however, the Modi government will require 362 votes (MPs), or a two-thirds majority, in the Lok Sabha if there are 543 members. Therefore, for a law to receive a two-thirds majority, more than 100 Members of Parliament must abstain from voting, which weakens the Lok Sabha. To pass the constitutional change legislation in the Lok Sabha, the government must win over non-NDA and opposition parties.
Numbers in the Rajya Sabha
Yet the Modi government has a stronger position in the Rajya Sabha, there are insufficient votes to enact the laws. There are 115 MPs from the BJP-led NDA in the Rajya Sabha. The NDA now has 121 MPs in the Upper House after the addition of six nominated members. In the Rajya Sabha, the INDIA group has 85 MPs. The Rajya Sabha has 250 members; if every one of them is present for the vote, 125 MPs would constitute the simple majority and 164 MPs the two-thirds majority.
There are 234 MPs in the Rajya Sabha at the moment. Given the current state of affairs, it is clear that the Modi government will find it difficult to adopt the legislation necessary to carry out the “One Nation, One Election” idea during the next Parliamentary sessions.
Over the past ten years, there has been a growing doubt about the rationale behind multi-phase elections. It is becoming more and more obvious that multi-phase elections have considerably more flaws than advantages. There were many fatalities during the most recent seven-phase election, which was conducted in 45–50-degree weather. Nearly all political parties, the media, and the electorate questioned the drawn-out election. The Election Commission (EC) learned that the most recent election could have been shorter, even Chief Election Commissioner Rajiv Kumar conceded.
Things were very unalike when multiphase elections were first conducted. There was a lot of muscle power usage. Election day violence, including deaths, was not uncommon, as did campaign violence. T N Seshan implemented the use of central armed police troops in the middle of the 1990s. Owing to many of the paramilitary men had to be removed from sensitive places where they were positioned, notably the borders, the number of paramilitary soldiers made available to the EC was consistently limited.
The delicate and hypersensitive voting booths had to be rotated from one phase to the next because there was never enough staff to cover them all. All political parties, accepting the local police to be either weak or fall for political pressure, welcomed the introduction of many phases as a result.
With the recent explosion of social media and heated electoral competitiveness, this measure has made elections more peaceful, but it has also caused more issues than it has resolved. Criminals move far more quickly than the forces, who require four to five days (or seven to eleven days in the case of the recent elections) to transition from one phase to the next. In several phases, rumors, fake news, and hate speech can have fatal results since they spread quickly. The Lok Sabha elections this year lasted for two and a half months, with the longest intervals between phases ever and a lot of divisive discourse.
A lot of current laws and provisions can be used to maintain peaceful elections. The Indian Penal Code contains several effective laws that can be put to use to curb hate speech, cybercrimes, and internet abuse. These include Sections 499 (defamation), 505 (statements conducive to public mischief), 153A (promoting enmity between persons), 295A (intentionally insulting religion or belief), and 506 (criminal intimidation). In addition, there is Section 125 of the Representation of the People Act (RP), which encourages class conflict during elections. One to three years in prison are set in each of these clauses.
India’s History of One Nation, One Election
Since the first national elections in 1951–1952, which took place at the same time as every Vidhan Sabha poll, the idea of simultaneous elections has existed. Up until 1967, when hung assemblies broke the pattern, this practice persisted. The simultaneous poll calendar was derailed in the following years by a series of prematurely dissolved state assemblies and Lok Sabhas.
One Nation One Election Pros and Cons
Advantages of One Nation, One Election
Simplified Voting Process: Simultaneous elections could improve voter registration efforts and reduce issues such as names being omitted from the voter list.
Corruption: The ongoing need to generate money to sustain many election campaigns is what fuels political corruption. This could be lessened by “One Nation, One Election” (ONOE), which would cut down on the number of required election campaigns every five years.
Governance: Very often scheduled elections may result in the focus shifting from campaigning to governing. Election cycles can be avoided by scheduling elections concurrently, allowing governments to concentrate on administration and policy.
Reduced Savings and Materials: Regular elections now come at a hefty price. As compared the first general elections in 1951–1952 cost about Rs 11 crore, while the 2019 elections cost Rs 60,000 crore. Estimates suggest that approximately Rs 1 lakh crore was spent in the 2024 Lok Sabha election.
Disadvantages of One Nation, One Election
Federalism Concerns: The federal structure of India’s political system may collide with ONOE, reducing the self-rule of state governments. In addition, the Law Commission has expressed a lack of faith about how suitable it would be to hold in uniting election within the confines of the current constitutional structure.
Logistical Difficulties: Overseeing ONOE would push for a lot of resources, like a lot of electronic voting equipment and trained personnel to oversee the process.
Democratic Representation: Voters can voice their opinions very often through regular elections, which affirms that governments are accountable for their actions.
Fear of Single-Party Dominance: Research indicates that concurrent elections increase the probability of a single party winning both state and federal elections, so eroding the divide between local and federal matters.
Lack of Appropriate Provisions: There is still no clear plan on how to deal with disruptions brought on by House dissolves, President’s Rule, hung assemblies, or parliaments, while also coordinating election cycles to cause the least amount of disruption to government and enlisting the support of all political parties.