Editorial: Division bell of One Nation One Election

Last week, the Union government initiated the exercise to implement its ‘One Nation One Election’ (ONOE) promise by 2029, accepting the recommendations of a high-level panel chaired by former president Ram Nath Kovind. The move will require support from both the opposition and non-NDA parties to carry out amendments to the Constitution. These amendments could be introduced in the winter session of Parliament.

The plan encompasses a two-stage transition — the first involves simultaneous polls for the Lok Sabha (545 seats) and state assemblies (4,123 assembly seats of 28 states and nine Union Territories). This will need an amendment to the Constitution, to be ratified by both Houses of Parliament with two-thirds majority. The second stage – holding elections to the 4,852 urban local bodies and village panchayats (roughly 31 lakh) within 100 days of general elections requires a second Constitutional amendment, ratified by at least half the states.

Those backing the proposal argue that simultaneous polls make for sound policy — in terms of governance, administration, convenience and cost. The cost of staggered elections is being seen as a huge drain on the country’s resources, with some reports estimating that Rs 60,000 cr was spent on the 2019 Lok Sabha elections alone. On the other hand, the estimated cost of the ONOE exercise in 2029 will be around Rs 7,951 cr. The logistical demands will require updating of the electoral rolls, procuring additional voting machines, and coordinating security forces.

The Kovind committee argued that unsynchronised elections put political parties in perpetual campaign mode, and that the ONOE system could help reduce voter fatigue, improve turnout by giving migrants the chance of visiting home only once to cast their vote. A research paper authored by Csaba Nikolenyi, a political scientist from Concordia University, Montreal, studied 260 elections in India between the years 1971 and 2004. It showed that the turnout on average was 9.94% higher when elections to the Union and States were held together. That’s essentially six crore more voters, if the elections were held this year.

Those on the opposing end of the argument have spoken about local and regional concerns getting cannibalised by national issues. This could give national parties an upper hand over their regional counterparts. Here in Tamil Nadu, Chief Minister MK Stalin summed up the proposal as logistically unfeasible, remarking that it ignores the complexities of India’s diverse electoral system, while undermining federalism. Let’s not forget, there’s also the question of undermining the provision of the no-confidence motion as the fall of a government would entail mid-term polls.

The vast differences in election cycles, regional concerns (one could add recurring extreme weather phenomena also to this), and the priorities of specific governments seemed to have been ignored, the CM said. Ironically, a counterpoint was put forth by TN BJP’s H Raja who drew attention to former CM M Karunanidhi’s support for ONOE, which found a mention even in his autobiography, where Kalaignar had said frequent elections disrupt governance and paralyse government machinery.

Political observers have weighed in on this issue to emphasise that implementing the ONOE system could lead to superficial governance, diminishing democratic representation and accountability at the grassroot level. While all-round political consensus will be essential for the government to plough ahead with ONOE, a question that must be asked is whether the federal structure and democratic ethos of the Indian constitution are worth sacrificing at the altar of monetary and logistical benefits?