One Nation One Election (ONOE)
Introduction
One Nation One Election (ONOE) refers to the proposal of holding simultaneous elections for the Lok Sabha and all State Legislative Assemblies once every five years. Instead of multiple elections taking place at different times across the country, the entire electoral exercise would be conducted together in a fixed cycle. The core objective of one nation one election in India is to streamline the electoral process, reduce the frequency of elections, and minimize the associated administrative, financial, and governance-related costs.
Central Idea behind one nation one election (ONOE)
The concept talks about a scenario where all State elections will take place simultaneously with the general elections of Lok Sabha, once every five years. The idea is to streamline the electoral process and reduce the frequency of elections, thus saving time and resources.
Background of one nation one election
- The idea of one nation one election has been around since 1983, when the Election Commission first mooted it. However, until 1967, simultaneous elections were the norm in India.
- The first General Elections to the House of People (Lok Sabha) and all State Legislative Assemblies were held simultaneously in 1951-52.
- That practice continued in three subsequent General Elections held in the years 1957, 1962 and 1967.
- However, due to the premature dissolution of some Legislative Assemblies in 1968 and 1969, the cycle got disrupted.
- In 1970, the Lok Sabha was itself dissolved prematurely and fresh elections were held in 1971. Thus, till 1970, only the First, Second and Third Lok Sabha enjoyed full five-year terms.
Various Benefits of one nation one election (ONOE)
Reducing Governance Distractions:
- Holding frequent elections diverts the entire country’s attention, from top leaders to local representatives, causing a virtual paralysis of administration at various levels.
- This preoccupation negatively impacts India’s growth prospects and hinders effective governance.
Model Code of Conduct’s Impact:
- The Model Code of Conduct (MCC) imposed during elections delays key policy decisions both at the national and local levels.
- Even ongoing projects face setbacks as election duties take precedence, leading to a slowdown in routine administration.
Addressing Political Corruption:
- Frequent elections contribute to political corruption as significant funds need to be raised for each election.
- Simultaneous elections can substantially reduce election expenses for political parties, eliminating the need for repetitive fundraising.
- It also lessens the pressure on the public and business community for multiple election donations.
Cost Savings and Electoral Infrastructure:
- When the first elections to the Lok Sabha took place in 1951-52, 53 parties contested the elections, around 1874 candidates participated and poll expenses were Rs. 11 crore.
- In the 2019 elections, there were 610 political parties and around 9,000 candidates; poll expenses of around Rs. 60,000 crores, as per Association of Democratic Reforms (ADR), are yet to be declared by the political parties.
- While initial infrastructure investments are required, using the same electoral rolls for all elections can save considerable time and money in updating and maintaining voter lists.
Citizen Convenience:
- Simultaneous elections alleviate concerns for citizens regarding missing names from electoral rolls.
- Using consistent electoral rolls for all elections streamlines the process, providing citizens with a more straightforward and reliable voting experience.
Optimizing Law Enforcement Resources:
- Massive redeployment of police and paramilitary forces during elections incurs significant costs and diverts key law enforcement personnel from critical functions.
- Simultaneous elections i.e one nation one election can curtail these deployments, optimizing resources and enhancing law enforcement efficiency.
Curbing Horse-Trading:
- Fixed-interval elections have the potential to reduce horse-trading by elected representatives.
- Holding elections at specific periods makes it more challenging for representatives to switch parties or form alliances for personal gains, complementing existing anti-defection laws.
Financial Stability for State Governments:
- Frequent elections lead to state governments announcing freebies to woo the electorate, often straining their finances.
- one nation one election could mitigate this issue, reducing the financial burden on state governments and contributing to greater financial stability.
Challenges Associated with one nation one election (ONOE)
Constitutional Concerns and Mid-Tenure Collapse:
- Article 83(2) and 172 of the Constitution outline a five-year tenure for Lok Sabha and State Assemblies unless dissolved earlier.
- The concept of ONOE raises questions about the repercussions if the Central or State government collapses mid-tenure.
- The dilemma of whether to hold elections in every State or impose President’s Rule complicates the constitutional framework.
Logistical Challenges in Implementing one nation one election:
- The implementation of ONOE poses significant logistical challenges, including the availability and security of electronic voting machines, personnel, and other resources.
- The EC may encounter difficulties in managing such a massive electoral exercise, adding complexity to the ONOE proposal.
Federalism Concerns and Law Commission’s Findings:
- one nation one election clashes with the concept of federalism, contrary to the idea of India as a “Union of States” specified in Article 1.
- Simultaneous elections are an attack on the autonomy and independence of state governments. This can not only weaken this federal structure but also increase the conflict of interest between the Centre and states.
- The terms of state governments vary, and some states are given special provisions under Article 371 of the Constitution.
- The Law Commission, under Justice B. S. Chauhan, reported that simultaneous elections are not feasible within the existing constitutional framework.
- Amendments to the Constitution, Representation of the People Act 1951, and Rules of Procedure of Lok Sabha and State Assemblies would be required.
Recurrence of Elections and Democratic Benefits:
- The current system of recurrent elections is seen as beneficial in a democracy, allowing voters to express their voices more frequently.
- This setup prevents the blending of issues between national and State polls, ensuring greater accountability.
- The distinctive demands and needs of each state are maintained under the present framework.
Biased Democratic Structure:
- A 2015 study by the IDFC Institute highlights a 77% chance that the winning political party or alliance will secure victories in both Lok Sabha and Assembly elections when held simultaneously. If the elections are held six months apart, however, only 61% of the voters choose the same party.
Legal Concerns:
- The introduction of one nation one election process may violate the Constitution, as highlighted in the S.R. Bommai case, where the Supreme Court emphasized the independent constitutional existence of States.
Language Bias in Consultation Process:
- The High-Level Committee’s consultation process, evident on its website, raises concerns of bias, exclusion, and inequality.
- The website, intended as an information repository and interaction platform, is available only in English and Hindi, neglecting the diversity of India’s 22 official languages.
Independence of the Election Commission:
- Questions are raised about the EC’s independence, analogous to demonetisation, where the Reserve Bank of India was kept uninformed.
- The Election Commission appears passive in the High-Level Committee’s process, jeopardizing its autonomy to make independent decisions on elections.
Way Forward
Building Consensus:
Building consensus among political parties and states is crucial for the feasibility of one nation one election. This necessitates open dialogues, consultations, and deliberations among diverse stakeholders to address concerns and garner support.
Constitutional Amendments:
To enable simultaneous elections, amendments to the Constitution, the Representation of the People Act 1951, and the Rules of Procedure of Lok Sabha and State Assemblies are imperative. This legal framework should accommodate the unique requirements of synchronized polls.
Aligning Assembly Terms with Lok Sabha:
A constitutional amendment could involve aligning assembly terms with Lok Sabha elections. As a proposal, any assembly whose term ends within six months before or after Lok Sabha elections could coincide their elections, streamlining the electoral process.
Investment in Infrastructure:
The successful implementation of one nation one election requires substantial investment in electoral infrastructure and technology. This includes ensuring an adequate supply of EVMs, VVPAT machines, polling booths, and trained security personnel.
Legal Framework for Contingencies:
Establishing a legal framework is essential for dealing with contingencies like no-confidence motions, premature assembly dissolution, or hung parliaments. This framework aims to manage unforeseen circumstances arising during the simultaneous election cycle.
Awareness and Voter Education:
Creating awareness among voters about the advantages and challenges of simultaneous elections is crucial. Voter education programs must ensure that citizens understand the process, enabling them to exercise their franchise without confusion or inconvenience.
Conclusion
The establishment of the ‘High Level Committee’, signals a significant deliberation on the synchronization of elections in India. Despite concerns about the potential impact on constitutional and legal principles, the lack of a definite timeline for the committee’s recommendations adds an air of uncertainty.
Legal concerns, particularly the potential alteration of State Legislature durations, present a constitutional challenge. The looming question of whether One Nation One Election can be stopped brings the constitutional role of the Indian Supreme Court to the forefront.
Read also….
