One Nation One Election: The Challenges and Opportunities

Prologue

A committee headed by former President Ram Nath Kovind has been constituted by the central government, to examine the possibility of “One Nation, One Election”.  This committee assumed significance as it was preceded by a tweet from the Parliamentary Affairs Minister Prahlad Joshi announcing a special five-day session of Parliament starting from September 18 to September 22.

This committee comprises Home Minister Amit Shah, Congress leader Ahir Ranjan Chowdhury, former Leader of Opposition in Rajya Sabha Ghulam Nabi Azad, former Finance Commission Chairman NK Singh, former Lok Sabha Secretary General Subhash C Kashyap, Senior Advocate Harish Salve and former Chief Vigilance Commissioner Sanjay Kothari. Ahir Ranjan Chowdhury has since declined to be a member of the committee.

There has been a deluge of debate, serious as well as flippant on “one nation one election’ from different perspectives and political hues. This disproportionate attention and political polarisation for a simple-looking move to streamline the administration of the election underlines the significance of this concept.  We would examine the ‘one nation one election’ and would also evaluate the two vocal and contrasting perspectives.

One Nation One Election – An Introduction

“One Nation, One Election” is a concept that has gained prominence in Indian politics over the years. It advocates synchronizing all elections in the country—national, state, and local—so that they occur simultaneously, usually once every five years. Proponents argue that this move would bring about several benefits, such as reducing the cost of elections, curbing the influence of money in politics, and ensuring a more stable governance structure. However, like any significant political reform, this idea has its share of pros and cons.

Argument for “One Nation One Election”

The need for “One Nation, One Election” is driven by the imperative to streamline India’s electoral process and promote more efficient governance. India, with its multi-tiered election schedule, frequently experiences disruptions in governance due to the constant cycle of elections at various levels. This not only places a significant financial burden on the exchequer but also diverts the attention of policymakers away from crucial developmental initiatives. By synchronizing elections to both the Lok Sabha and state assemblies, the “One Nation, One Election” concept seeks to reduce these disruptions, allowing elected representatives and government officials to focus on delivering meaningful governance and developmental programs. Additionally, it has the potential to enhance voter participation by reducing voter fatigue and fostering a stronger sense of political engagement. Let’s examine it in further details –

Cost Reduction: Proponents argue that conducting multiple elections at different times is expensive. Consolidating elections could lead to significant cost savings for the government and political parties. This reduction in expenses could be allocated to more critical public issues. The Election Commission incurs about Rs.4500 cr. for holding elections.

Continuous Governance: “One Nation, One Election” aims to provide a more stable and continuous governance structure. Frequent elections can disrupt policymaking and governance as politicians often prioritize short-term measures to appease voters, which may not be in the best long-term interest of the nation. The application of the Model Code of Conduct (MCC), during the electoral process, prohibits all new development work and initiatives to protect the process against undue influence of the party in government. In a multiple-election scenario, the MCC period may be as long as 6 months and the government formation may take a couple of more months. This effectively provides a time frame of 4 years or less for the functioning of an elected government. This is obviously a suitable model.

Reduced Influence of Money: Political campaigns are often funded by corporate interests and wealthy individuals. Synchronizing elections could reduce the frequency of elections, which, in turn, might decrease the dependency on large financial contributions and lessen the influence of money in politics. However, political parties spend a lot on their campaign. As per a report of the Centre for Media Studies quoted in BQ Prime, political parties spent approximately Rs. 50,000.00 Cr. (USD 8 Billion) in the 2019 Lok Sabha election. This amount was more than the expenditure in the US presidential election in 2016. The extravagance on election campaigns has witnessed a six-fold increase over the last six elections from Rs.9000 cr. to Rs.50,000.00 cr.  As per an ET report, per capita expenditure was $8 in a country where sixty percent of the population lives on S3 a day.

The amount of money spent on a campaign is disruptive to the democratic process and policy choices of a political system. While this requires to be addressed comprehensively with reforms in the entire process of election, its conduct, and campaign, it would be a step in the right direction to reduce the number of elections in the country.

Increased Voter Engagement: Longer election cycles might lead to voter fatigue and disengagement. Simultaneous elections may maintain the electorate’s interest and participation, resulting in a more informed and engaged citizenry. The disengaged voters, though not record their democratic preference through voting, convey their indifference to the process, narrative, and outcome of the election. It is a desirable situation when 35% of voters stay away from the democratic process.

Reduce troop movement: During every election, a substantial deployment of paramilitary forces extends to every corner of the country. Over time, the frequency of these deployments has been on the rise, aimed at guaranteeing a tranquil and just electoral process. These troops are reassigned from numerous sensitive postings to fulfill their election duties. Notably, even during local Panchayat elections, the Calcutta High Court has issued directives for the mobilization of central forces.

Arguments against “One Nation One Election”

Opponents of the “One Nation, One Election” concept argue that it risks undermining the principles of federalism and diversity within India’s political landscape. India is a country of immense diversity, with states having unique political and cultural dynamics. Synchronizing all elections across the nation could dilute the focus on regional issues and concerns, potentially leading to a situation where national-level politics dominates at the expense of local and regional interests. Furthermore, it may not necessarily reduce the financial burden on the government, as the expenses associated with a massive, simultaneous election could be just as significant as the current staggered approach. Critics also raise concerns about the logistical challenges, constitutional amendments, and the potential for the ruling party at the national level to gain an unfair advantage. Let’s examine some of these in detail –

Constitutional and Practical Challenges: Implementing “One Nation, One Election” in a diverse country like India is a monumental task. Coordinating elections at different levels of government and amending the Constitution would require a significant amount of time and resources.

Dilution of Local Issues: Critics argue that synchronizing elections might overshadow local and regional issues, as national concerns may dominate the discourse. Local elections serve as a platform to address community-specific problems, and this focus could be lost in the process.

Loss of Accountability: Frequent elections allow citizens to hold their representatives accountable more frequently. Lengthening the electoral cycle may reduce the urgency of politicians to remain accountable to their constituents, potentially leading to complacency and neglect of public interests.

Disruption of Governance: Consolidating elections could result in an extended period of political campaigning and uncertainty, thereby disrupting governance and policy implementation during the election year.

Historical Perspective of ” One Nation One Election”

The concept of “One nation one election” is not a new one. In India, concurrent elections for the Lok Sabha and state assemblies occurred in four consecutive electoral cycles, spanning from 1951-52 to 1967. However, there was an exception when the democratically elected government in Kerala was dismissed in 1959 using Article 356 of the Constitution of India, leading to another election in 1960. Nevertheless, since 1967, with the advent of coalition governments, state assemblies have experienced short-lived administrations, necessitating frequent elections, which disrupted the synchronized electoral process for both the Lok Sabha and state assemblies.

“One nation one election” – is it constitutionally possible?

The complications posed by multiple elections and their detrimental effects on governance have prompted several statutory and legal bodies to assess the feasibility of implementing “one nation one election.” Over time, institutions such as the Law Commission, Niti Aayog, and the Standing Committee of Parliament have undertaken examinations of this matter. There appears to be a widespread agreement on the advantages of transitioning toward synchronized elections to minimize disruptions in government and program implementation. However, it’s important to note that such a transition might necessitate certain constitutional amendments to make it possible.

Epilogue

The concept of “One Nation One Election” has its merits, such as cost reduction, reduced influence of money in politics, and a more stable governance structure. However, it also comes with challenges related to constitutional amendments, potential dilution of local issues, and disruptions to governance.

As India contemplates the implementation of “One Nation One Election,” it should carefully consider these pros and cons, while keeping in mind the nation’s rich democratic traditions and diverse needs. Ultimately, the success of such a reform will depend on how well it addresses the specific challenges and objectives of the Indian political landscape.