One Nation One Election

One Nation One Election (Simultaneous elections)

ONOE's core idea: To hold Lok Sabha and all State Assembly elections simultaneously across the country, reducing the frequency of elections and potentially leading to increased focus on governance.

History: ONOE was implemented after the Indian Constitution came into effect in 1950. The first-ever simultaneous Lok Sabha and State Assembly elections were held in 1951-1952. The practice continued for three subsequent elections until 1967.

After 1967, various factors like political instability and defections led to separate polls for Lok Sabha and State Assemblies.

Benefits:

Financial burden: Holding elections is a costly affair. Manpower, infrastructure, security, and campaign expenses all contribute to a significant drain on the national treasury.

Policy disruptions: During election periods, policy decisions often get stalled or deferred, leading to a halt in progress and development.

Administrative overload: The election machinery constantly gears up and winds down, placing immense pressure on administrative resources and personnel.

The idea of ONOE (One Nation, One Election) emerges as a potential solution to address these challenges. By synchronizing Lok Sabha and state assembly elections, the proposal aims to:

Reduce the frequency of polls: Fewer elections translate to decreased expenditure, smoother policy flow, and less administrative strain.

Enhance voter turnout: A single national election day could potentially boost voter participation by focusing attention and simplifying the voting process.

Streamline governance: With synchronized elections, governments at different levels can better align their priorities and programs, leading to more cohesive national development.

Challenges:

Constitutional amendments: This is indeed a significant challenge. Articles 83 (Lok Sabha term), 85 (dissolution of Lok Sabha), 172 (state assembly term), 174 (dissolution of state assemblies), and 356 (President's rule) would need modifications to accommodate synchronized elections. Ratifying these amendments requires approval from two-thirds of both houses of Parliament and half of the state legislatures, making it a difficult political achievement.

Political consensus: Different parties have varied interests and electoral strategies. Building consensus on a common election schedule can be challenging, as parties may fear losing their political advantage in specific situations.

Cost: While ONOE might ultimately reduce overall election costs, initial expenses might be higher. Purchasing additional election equipment, replacing aging Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs), and deploying extra polling and security personnel are potential financial burdens.

Logistics: Organizing simultaneous elections across a vast and diverse country like India is no small feat. Coordinating logistics, deploying sufficient personnel, and ensuring security nationwide pose significant challenges.

Legal issues: Representation of the People Act governs the conduct of elections in India. Amending it to accommodate ONOE would be necessary, requiring careful analysis of its implications for electoral fairness and democratic principles.

The perspectives from the Election Commission and the Law Commission offer valuable insights into the potential benefits and challenges of implementing this proposal.

Election Commission:

The ECI's early endorsement of ONOE in 1982 suggests a long-standing recognition of its potential benefits. Their expertise in conducting elections provides valuable insight into the practical challenges and opportunities of ONOE implementation.

It would be interesting to explore the specific arguments the ECI used in 1982 and how their views have evolved over the years.

Law Commission:

The Law Commission's consistent support for ONOE, as evidenced by its reports in 1999 and 2018, indicates a deep understanding of the legal and constitutional issues involved.

The 2018 report's emphasis on "one person, one vote" and electoral integrity is crucial. It highlights the need to ensure that ONOE doesn't compromise the fundamental principles of democracy.

It would be helpful to delve deeper into the specific constitutional amendments and legal reforms the Law Commission proposed in its 2018 report.

The debate surrounding ONOE is ongoing, with proponents highlighting its potential benefits and critics raising concerns about its feasibility and implications. Evaluating the arguments on both sides and conducting thorough research is crucial before reaching a concrete decision on the future of ONOE in India's electoral system.

Go to Link