One Nation, One Dictation?

The world’s most extensive democracy, India, thrives amidst a myriad of languages, cultures, ideologies, and political landscapes. In this intricate mosaic, elections act as an extremely complex and time-consuming endeavour, one that can hammer a dent into government expenditure unnecessarily. While we have adhered to staggered elections held at distinct junctures for the Lok Sabha (the national legislature) and the State Assemblies, a compelling proposal has gained momentum in the corridors of power—an ambitious vision that seeks to synchronise the electoral process of this diverse and vast nation: the “One Nation, One Election” reform.

India’s political landscape has witnessed its fair share of political elections, heading to voting at different times of the year. This has potentially disrupted the political governance and the development initiatives introduced by the government while consuming vast amounts of resources. The “One Nation, One Election” reform was led by former President Ram Nath Kovind, who has been promoting this policy ever since its backing by Prime Minister Narendra Modi. They argued that this reform could pave the way for a more efficient and democratic system, in hopes of making this process more streamlined and ridding the system of all its problems.

India’s tryst with democracy began in 1952 when it conducted its first general elections. To lessen the number of elections across the nation, the Lok Sabha and State Assembly elections were being coordinated across all States and was a common practice up until 1967. Defections, dismissals, and the dissolving of governments disrupted this system. The implementation of Article 356 in the dismissal of the then-Kerala government in 1959 is when this system was first broken and highlighted the main predicament of holding elections at the same time.

India has witnessed its fair share of defections and legislators switching parties, leading to the collapse of governments, whether it be due to political opportunism or ideological differences. In synchronised elections, cases of defections or a vote of no confidence against the current government could eventually trigger an early dissolution of the Lok Sabha along with the State Assemblies. This would lead to the number of elections being held to increase, defeating the very purpose of having elections at the same time. Coordination of elections becomes problematic as well; when defections take place or legislators change their political allegiances, they can eventually disrupt the balance of power in the state, making it difficult to coordinate elections at the same time at both levels with these abrupt changes.

Furthermore, the hitches continue in the dissolution of governments. Questions are also raised about the autonomy of the state government within the Indian Federal structure when they can easily be removed due to central power under Article 356 of the Indian Constitution. If simultaneous elections are mandated across states and the centre, there could be concerns about undermining the autonomy of states, as it may require synchronising the dissolution of state assemblies with the tenure of the Lok Sabha.

Apart from these existing problems in the ‘60s, going back to this policy is bound to cause further drawbacks. The first one is the fact that to implement this reform, we would be required to contrive changes to the Constitution and other legal frameworks. The synchronisation of elections would require a constitutional amendment and then further would be taken to be addressed in the State Assemblies. The fact that India hosts a larger number of states with a larger population further hinders the process. Regional issues could also be overshadowed by the predominant national issues. If and when elections are synchronised, the only reason for issues of the layman to be addressed is the fact that it doesn’t coincide with any other cardinal event.

However, there is a rationale behind this decision by the Prime Minister and the former President. The fact that discussions have resumed even after its dissolution in 1967 leads us to contemplate the pros of the synchronisation of elections. The primary reason for this is the reduction of government expenditure. As each separate election requires a vast sum of money and financial resources, reducing the number to just one helps the government to save money in different areas, including security, logistics, and campaign costs.

Whatever it may be, the money saved could be utilised for the development of the nation, from increasing employment to reducing inflation, and it could be used virtually anywhere for public welfare. This would then give way to efficient governance. Frequent elections cause hindrance in the policymaking process of a nation as political parties are disincentivized from making bold decisions in the build-up to the elections with the predominant fear of losing those votes lingering in their minds. The fact that they would be given the freedom to implement policies without the fear of hitches in the way would lead to a more stable and effective government. Elections held at particular times can lessen elected officials' hesitancy, which is still a problem despite the increased democratic state. It may be more difficult for them to switch parties or forge alliances for their benefit if elections are held at fixed intervals, countering the premier problem with this reform, defection, and the dissolution of power.

Other minor, derided benefits of this reform could also be negated. Regular elections may cause policy implementation to go fits and starts. Synchronised elections would give governments a longer and more consistent window to put plans for development into action, possibly improving the outcomes for citizens. Furthermore, overall coordination at many levels of government can be difficult administratively. Election authorities would be able to conduct polls and manage resources more effectively thanks to synchronised elections' simplification of administrative procedures. Further increasing the efficiency of the government. Due to India’s many election cycles, voters feel voter fatigue. Election synchronisation would make it easier for voters to engage in the democratic process by easing the burden on them.

Moreover, in September 2024, the Modi cabinet approved the “One Nation, One Election” bill, which was introduced in the Lok Sabha in December 2024. The bill received 269 votes in favour and 198 against, falling short of the required two-thirds majority for constitutional amendments. Despite this setback, the government has indicated a willingness to build consensus and address legal aspects before moving forward.

The reform might result in more people participating in politics and casting more ballots, making politics more accurate for the layman and increasing the other stakeholders of this reform. The “One Nation, One Election” reform could be undertaken by India, but it solely depends on the feasibility of it for the nation at this point. It is imperative to save financial resources for the growth of a developing nation, with reducing the government hindrance and then making skills more affluent as the nation grows. Considering we are a developing nation with prospects of reaching the giants in today’s world, these changes would greatly aid in the populace for its making it a necessary reform.

As India continues to debate the feasibility and implications of the “One Nation, One Election” reform, it remains to be seen how this ambitious proposal will navigate the complex political and constitutional landscape of the nation.​ While the cons do exist, they have gradually diminished over time from the ‘60s, and the few drawbacks that still exist are overshadowed by the benefits that the area can reap from this reform, if implemented properly.