Context

• On December 12, the Union Cabinet approved a proposal to implement simultaneous elections across India, encompassing the Lok Sabha, State Legislative Assemblies, and local bodies.
• This decision stems from the recommendations of a high-level committee chaired by former President Ram Nath Kovind, which submitted its report on the One Nation, One Election plan in September 2024.
• While the idea of simultaneous elections has been championed for its potential benefits, such as cost reduction and administrative efficiency, it has ignited significant debate over its feasibility and implications for India's democratic framework.

The Genesis and Scope of the Proposal

• Historical Context of Simultaneous Elections
  • The idea of simultaneous elections, often referred to as One Nation, One Election, has been periodically debated in India’s political discourse.
  • Its origins can be traced back to the early years of the Republic when elections to the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies were held simultaneously until 1967.
  • This practice was disrupted due to early dissolutions of certain assemblies and the Lok Sabha itself, resulting in a staggered election schedule that persists today.
  • The present proposal to revive simultaneous elections gained renewed momentum after Prime Minister Narendra Modi advocated for it in 2013, citing the high costs, administrative burden, and policy disruptions caused by frequent elections.
• Mandate and Scope of the Kovind Committee
  • The high-level committee chaired by former President Ram Nath Kovind was tasked with examining the feasibility of implementing this concept.
  • Constituted on September 2, 2023, the committee dedicated 191 days to prepare a comprehensive 18,626-page report, which it submitted on March 14, 2024.
  • Unlike previous committees, this one was not asked to weigh the pros and cons of simultaneous elections but was specifically directed to suggest legislative and administrative measures to implement the concept.
  • This limitation in scope has been a significant point of contention among critics, who argue that a holistic analysis of the proposal’s broader implications was necessary before moving toward implementation.

Concerns, Criticism and Challenges Surrounding the ONOE Proposal

• Public Consultations and their Limitations
  • The report invited public feedback, receiving over 21,000 responses, with 80% reportedly supporting the proposal.
  • However, the methodology of soliciting suggestions, restricted to Hindi and English, has drawn criticism for potentially excluding a significant portion of India's multilingual and diverse population.
  • Consequently, the responses may not adequately represent the views of all regions or communities, particularly those where regional parties dominate the political landscape.
• Political Divisions over the Proposal
  • Among the 47 political parties that responded to the committee, a stark divide emerged.
  • Thirty-two parties, all aligned with the ruling National Democratic Alliance (NDA), endorsed the proposal, emphasising its potential to streamline governance and reduce election-related expenditures.
  • On the other hand, 15 opposition parties vehemently opposed it, deeming the proposal anti-democratic and a threat to federalism.
  • Critics argued that simultaneous elections could centralise power, marginalise regional parties, and shift India’s parliamentary system toward a quasi-presidential model, where national narratives overshadow local and state-specific issues.
• Phased Implementation and Constitutional Amendments
  • The scope of the proposal extends beyond merely aligning election dates.
  • It envisions the synchronisation of Lok Sabha and State Assembly elections, while local body elections are to follow within 100 days of general elections.
  • This phased approach, while attempting to address logistical complexities, raises questions about its alignment with the very definition of simultaneous elections.
  • The report also outlined constitutional amendments, including the introduction of a new Article 82A, which mandates that all legislative assemblies elected after a specific date complete their full terms alongside the Lok Sabha.
• Dilution of Local and State Level Issues
  • A primary concern is that simultaneous elections could dilute the focus on local and state-specific issues.
  • National narratives might overshadow regional matters, undermining the federal structure of governance.
  • States could lose the flexibility to dissolve assemblies based on political needs, potentially affecting the outcomes of state elections.
  • The report's proposal to align state elections with the Lok Sabha's tenure in case of early dissolutions raises questions about the practicality and fairness of truncated terms for elected representatives.
• Logistical Challenges
  • The proposal requires conducting municipal and panchayat elections within 100 days of general elections, effectively demanding two separate election phases.
  • Mobilising 15 million election staff twice in such a short span, while ensuring voter participation, could prove impossible.
  • Wage workers and employees might face difficulties in returning to polling stations, potentially disenfranchising millions.
  • Furthermore, the financial burden of acquiring and maintaining three times the current number of electronic voting machines (EVMs) and voter-verifiable paper audit trails (VVPATs) contradicts the purported goal of cost reduction.

Some Other Criticisms of ONOE Proposal

• Little Contemplation on Alternative Approaches
  • The report did not explore alternative methods to address election-related costs and disruptions.
  • Reducing the duration of elections from 10 weeks to four weeks, coupled with a cap on political party expenditures, could significantly lower costs without overhauling the electoral framework.
  • These measures, however, were beyond the committee’s mandate, raising questions about the narrow scope of its recommendations.
• Questions on the Sincerity of the Proposal
  • The credibility of the simultaneous election proposal has been undermined by its inconsistent implementation over the years.
  • For instance, Himachal Pradesh and Gujarat elections, traditionally held simultaneously, were separated in recent years.
  • Similarly, elections due within six months have not been clubbed, contradicting the proposal's stated rationale.
  • Critics argue that these inconsistencies reveal a lack of genuine commitment to the idea and suggest a political motive behind its sudden resurgence.

Constitutional and Legislative Implications

• Implementing simultaneous elections would necessitate significant constitutional amendments and legislative changes.
• A proposed Article 82A seeks to standardise the tenure of state assemblies with the Lok Sabha.
• However, the proposal does not eliminate the possibility of midterm elections, which could undermine the very principle of simultaneity.
• Additionally, transitioning to a single electoral roll for all three tiers of elections, as recommended, would place an onerous responsibility on the Election Commission of India (ECI).
• It will require seamless coordination with state election commissions which is a challenging task, especially in opposition-ruled states.

Conclusion

• The concept of simultaneous elections has the potential to streamline India’s electoral processes, reduce costs, and minimise disruptions to governance.
• However, the current proposal is fraught with challenges, ranging from logistical and financial constraints to constitutional and democratic concerns.
• Its implementation without a broad consensus risks undermining India’s federal structure and democratic ethos.
• Without genuine consensus and transparent deliberation, the One Nation, One Election plan risks becoming an exercise in centralisation rather than a tool for democratic empowerment.