Welcome to Legalkhabar.online, in this Article we will discuss the mechanism of One Nation One Election, which is a trending topic in India!
An election in Indian democracy is like a grand collective decision-making festival where the voices of the people resonate to shape their nation’s destiny. Rooted in the principle of "of the people, by the people, for the people," elections are a formal process where citizens vote to elect representatives who will govern on their behalf.
Imagine a village named Bharatpur in 1952, the year India held its first general election. The entire village is buzzing with excitement. Chintu, a young farmer, stands proudly in line to cast his vote. Despite being illiterate, Chintu knows that this simple act connects him to something greater—the governance of his newly independent nation. Inspired by elders who fought for freedom, Chintu understands that a democratic system ensures his concerns, like irrigation or better farming tools, are heard. As he drops his ballot into the box, he feels empowered, knowing he plays a part in choosing leaders who share his aspirations.
India’s first general election in 1951-52 was a monumental moment, involving over 173 million eligible voters, many experiencing democracy for the first time. Despite challenges like illiteracy and logistical hurdles, 45% of the electorate participated, showcasing faith in democracy. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, one of the Constitution’s chief architects, emphasized elections as a means to assert rights and ensure accountability from leaders. A powerful example of this accountability is the 1977 general election, following the Emergency period (1975-77), when the people voted out a powerful ruling government. It highlighted that no leader is above the people’s collective will.
Elections in India are more than an inked finger; they symbolize the nation’s vibrant democratic spirit and the power of every citizen’s voice to shape the country’s future, as shown by Chintu’s story and India’s historical milestones.
One Nation, One Election: Transforming India’s Electoral Landscape
On December 12, 2024, the Union Cabinet approved the groundbreaking “One Nation, One Election (ONOE)” Bill, a plan that has the potential to revolutionize India’s electoral framework. This historic proposal stems from the recommendations of a high-level panel led by former President Ram Nath Kovind. If implemented, this plan seeks to synchronize the elections for the Lok Sabha and state Assemblies into a dual-phase process, ushering in significant reforms with far-reaching implications.
The ONOE concept, though ambitious, is not new. India had a history of conducting simultaneous elections between 1952 and 1967. However, disruptions in subsequent years caused by premature dissolutions and political instability led to separate election cycles. The idea to revive ONOE gained momentum through several reports—most notably the Law Commission's 170th Report in 1999 and the 2017 NITI Aayog report. Now, the government's efforts may restore this system for the betterment of India's governance and electoral efficiency.
Historical Evolution of ONOE
India’s experiment with synchronized elections traces back to the colonial era under the Government of India Act, 1935, which allowed for the alignment of electoral processes for different legislative bodies. After independence, this model was continued through the first few General Elections. However, it was interrupted during the late 1960s due to issues like premature dissolutions and mid-term elections, ultimately forcing the fragmentation of the electoral process.
The concept was revisited periodically by committees such as the Law Commission (1999) and the Parliamentary Standing Committee (2015). Both highlighted the potential benefits of aligning elections, including reducing disruption, cutting costs, and ensuring effective governance.
Key Benefits of One Nation, One Election
-
Streamlined Governance: Frequent elections often push governments into "campaign mode," stalling long-term planning and development projects. For instance, during recent elections, major projects in states like Uttar Pradesh were delayed due to Model Code of Conduct restrictions. ONOE could ensure that governance proceeds without such interruptions, fostering better decision-making over a sustained period.
-
Cost-Reduction: The financial burden of elections in India is immense. The 2019 Lok Sabha election cost a staggering ₹55,000 crore, up from ₹9,000 crore in 1998. By reducing election frequency, ONOE can potentially save the government between ₹7,500 crore and ₹12,000 crore, funds that can be diverted to essential sectors like healthcare and education.
-
Voter Engagement: With frequent elections leading to voter fatigue, participation often declines, as seen in various by-polls. Synchronizing elections would potentially increase voter turnout by consolidating multiple electoral events into fewer, larger ones, thereby revitalizing public interest and democratic participation.
-
Reduction in Electoral Malpractices: ONOE may reduce opportunities for illegal activities like vote-buying, misuse of state machinery, and distribution of freebies, which often take place in staggered elections. This would help strengthen the Election Commission's oversight mechanisms.
-
Optimized Resource Utilization: The security forces, stretched thin across multiple elections, could benefit from optimized deployment. With synchronized elections, security resources could be allocated more efficiently, without leaving security gaps, ensuring better national preparedness.
-
Harmonized Development Goals: ONOE can strengthen federalism and lead to coordinated development plans. By ensuring that the terms of both central and state governments are aligned, ONOE may promote better collaboration in areas like healthcare, education, and infrastructural development.
Key Challenges
Despite its potential, ONOE raises several issues that need addressing:
-
Constitutional Amendments: Synchronizing elections would require extensive amendments to the Constitution, including changes to Articles 83, 85, 172, and 356. The complexity of adjusting terms and the democratic implications of such modifications cannot be understated. Moreover, implementing President's Rule or similar interventions might complicate matters during times of political unrest.
-
Risk to Federalism: Critics of ONOE argue that it could undermine the autonomy of states. Local issues, such as agricultural distress or unemployment, could be overshadowed by national campaigns, eroding the essence of cooperative federalism and limiting local concerns in public debates.
-
Logistical Hurdles: Conducting simultaneous elections for over 900 million voters, across 1 million polling stations, poses significant challenges. The Election Commission’s plan would also require significant funds, for example, ₹10,000 crore every 15 years for the replacement of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs).
-
Political Resistance: Regional parties fear that ONOE could diminish their importance in the face of a strong, unified national campaign. During previous discussions on the issue, more than 15 political parties expressed opposition to the concept, particularly those who feel their focus on local issues would be eclipsed by larger national narratives.
-
Disruptions from Political Instability: If a government collapses prematurely, whether at the center or in a state, the synchronized election cycle could be upended, requiring further disruptions and possibly leading to imposition of President's Rule to restore stability.
-
Election Disputes: A single election process will lead to a massive increase in the number of election-related petitions, causing delays in adjudicating these disputes. The judiciary would need to address this challenge, to ensure the smooth continuation of governance during election years.
Key Recommendations by the ONOE Panel
In an effort to mitigate these challenges, the Kovind panel made several recommendations:
-
Phased Implementation: ONOE should first align the dates of the Lok Sabha and state assembly elections. Phase II could integrate municipal and panchayat elections, thus achieving further alignment.
-
Term Adjustments: New state assemblies may have adjusted terms to fall in line with general elections, ensuring that elections are synchronized without compromising democratic legitimacy.
-
Enhanced Election Infrastructure: Investment in equipment and technology, including new EVMs, would be crucial to maintain smooth election processes. Furthermore, creating a unified voter roll would significantly streamline the management of multiple elections.
-
Piloting in Union Territories: Before implementing ONOE on a national level, the proposal could be tested in Union Territories like Delhi and Puducherry, where the logistics would be less challenging.
Lessons from Abroad
Countries like Indonesia and South Africa have implemented successful ONOE systems. In 2019, Indonesia held simultaneous presidential and legislative elections across multiple levels. South Africa combines its national elections with provincial elections, demonstrating how ONOE can work across different scales.
Conclusion
While the One Nation, One Election proposal offers multiple benefits, including reduced costs, improved governance, and greater voter engagement, the challenges of its implementation cannot be overlooked. Constitutional hurdles, federal concerns, logistical barriers, and political resistance must be dealt with carefully to ensure the policy’s success. With the right safeguards in place, however, ONOE can help create a more streamlined, cost-efficient, and effective electoral system in India—ultimately contributing to better governance and national development.
For more info visit legalkhabar.online or our YouTube Channel insights_io
