The BJP-led government at the Centre is now on course to try and implement the "One Nation, One Election" -- simultaneous elections for the central and state governments every five years -- system in the country after the Union Cabinet gave its seal of approval earlier this week. This decision was based on the recommendations of a high-level committee led by former President Ram Nath Kovind, which was submitted to the Union Cabinet.
ALSO READ: Guwahati Struggles To Breathe As Dust Pollution Envelopes City
The BJP has been a strong proponent of the concept for some time, growing further particularly after Prime Minister Narendra Modi voiced it soon after coming to power in 2014. At the same time though, this is not an entirely new concept; the Election Commission first proposed it in 1983. Until 1967, India regularly conducted simultaneous elections, but this practice was disrupted in 1968 and 1969 when several legislative assemblies were dissolved prematurely. The Lok Sabha, too, was dissolved in 1970 before completing its full term. If reports are to be believed the bill related to this could be tabled in the upcoming winter session of Parliament.
The idea behind the move is to synchronise all elections in the country, either on a single day or within a specific time frame, to reduce the financial burden which has grown substantially over the years. For instance, according to reports, while the first general elections in 1951-52 cost around ₹11 crore, the 2019 elections incurred an estimated cost of ₹60,000 crore and the cost of holding the 2024 elections jumped to ₹1.35 lakh crore. Add to this the cost of holding state elections and the amount can be anybody’s guess. Having a single election could reduce these costs and also streamline the use of resources, including law enforcement personnel, who are heavily involved in election duties. That apart, one election will also mitigate the administrative strain of conducting frequent polls. It is also argued in favour of having only one election at a time every five years is that with fewer elections, the government can focus on governance and development activities rather than remain perpetually engaged in electioneering. Reduction in potential corruption due to fewer election campaigns, simplified voting process, and less strain on the finances of state governments are a few of the other benefits that could accrue from the new system.
Be that as it may, the implementation cannot be expected to be a walk in the park with many a thorn strewn on the way. For starters, implementing simultaneous elections would require significant amendments to the Constitution. For instance, according to the Constitution, both the Lok Sabha and state assemblies must serve five-year terms, unless dissolved earlier. In the event of a government collapsing before its term expires then the cycle will be broken; the Law Commission has already expressed doubts about the feasibility of simultaneous elections under the present constitutional framework. One key fear raised is the possibility of the new system reducing the autonomy of state governments and thus hitting federalism, and the risk of the same party winning both the national and state elections, potentially undermining the distinction between local and national issues. Needless to say, there are strong arguments both in favour and against "One Nation, One Election" and the only way forward for the government is to first try and build a broad consensus among political parties and stakeholders and desist from pushing it down the Opposition’s throat on the strength of numbers in Parliament as has been witnessed in the past.