Decoding India's 'One Nation, One Election' Plan: A Step Towards Electoral Reform or a Centralization of Power?

India, the world's largest democracy, is a country perpetually in election mode. With 28 states, eight union territories, and nearly a billion eligible voters, elections are an ever-present feature of the political landscape. The concept of "One Nation, One Election," long championed by Prime Minister Narendra Modi's Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), seeks to streamline this electoral process by synchronizing federal and state elections every five years. On the surface, the proposal promises efficiency and cost savings, but it also raises complex questions about India's federal structure and democratic ethos.

Understanding the "One Nation, One Election" Proposal

India’s democratic framework involves multiple election cycles—general elections for parliament, state elections for legislative assemblies, and separate polls for local governance. These elections are staggered across the country, creating a continuous cycle of political campaigns and administrative preparations.

The "One Nation, One Election" plan proposes synchronizing these polls to reduce costs, simplify logistics, and streamline governance. While the idea isn’t new—India conducted simultaneous elections from 1951 to 1967—political instability and early dissolutions of assemblies led to the current staggered system. Reviving this approach has been debated for decades, with recommendations from the Election Commission in 1983, the Law Commission in 1999, and Niti Aayog in 2017.

In March 2024, a nine-member committee led by former President Ram Nath Kovind proposed a comprehensive report advocating for simultaneous polls. The proposal includes synchronizing local body elections within 100 days and limiting the tenure of governments formed after unscheduled polls to the next synchronized election.

The Case for Simultaneous Elections

Supporters argue that synchronized elections would be a "game changer." Among the key benefits:

1. Cost Efficiency: Elections are expensive. India’s 2019 general elections cost more than ₹600 billion ($7.07 billion), making it the world’s most expensive. Simultaneous polls could significantly reduce these costs by avoiding duplicate expenditures on electronic voting machines, security, and administrative staff.

2. Governance and Policy Continuity: The model code of conduct, enforced during elections, halts new policy initiatives. The BJP claims this caused "800 days of governance" to be lost in the past five years. Simultaneous elections could minimize such disruptions.

3. Administrative Efficiency: Organizing elections requires significant logistical resources, from deploying security personnel to procuring voting machines. A unified schedule could optimize these efforts.

Former President Kovind cited studies suggesting that synchronized polls could boost India’s GDP by up to 1.5%, highlighting the potential economic benefits.

The Challenges and Criticisms

Despite its apparent advantages, the proposal faces considerable challenges:

1. Constitutional Amendments: Implementing simultaneous elections requires amendments to key constitutional provisions. This process demands approval from at least half of India’s 28 state assemblies, in addition to a two-thirds majority in parliament—a hurdle even the BJP’s strong coalition may struggle to overcome.

2. Resource Requirements: While the plan aims to reduce costs, it necessitates substantial initial investments. A 2015 parliamentary report estimated ₹92.84 billion would be required to procure new electronic voting machines and voter-verifiable paper audit trail (VVPAT) systems, which need replacement every 15 years.

3. Federalism Concerns: Critics warn that simultaneous elections could weaken India’s federal structure by centralizing power and diminishing the autonomy of state governments. Opposition parties argue that aligning state and federal polls would disproportionately benefit national parties, undermining regional voices.

4. Logistical Complexity: With 900 million eligible voters, ensuring adequate voting infrastructure and personnel for simultaneous elections presents significant logistical challenges.

A Nation Divided: Supporters vs. Opponents

The "One Nation, One Election" plan has sparked a polarizing debate. Out of 47 political parties consulted by the Kovind committee, 32 supported the proposal, while 15 opposed it. Supporters, largely BJP allies, emphasize the cost and time savings. Prime Minister Modi has been vocal about the benefits, stating, “Frequent elections are obstructing the nation’s advancement.”

However, opposition parties, led by Congress, view the proposal as undemocratic. They argue it could erode India’s parliamentary system by prioritizing uniformity over diversity. Critics also call for enhanced transparency in election funding as a more effective solution to reducing costs.

The Road Ahead

The Indian government has introduced bills in parliament to amend the Constitution and align election schedules. While the BJP has expressed willingness to consult political parties and refer the bills to a parliamentary committee, achieving consensus remains a significant challenge.

The "One Nation, One Election" plan offers a bold vision for India’s democratic future, promising efficiency and streamlined governance. However, it must navigate a maze of logistical, constitutional, and political hurdles. Whether this vision becomes a reality or remains a topic of debate will depend on India’s ability to balance innovation with its commitment to federalism and inclusivity.