One Nation, One Election: Is it the Need of the Hour and How to Implement it?

One Nation, One Election (ONOE), is one of the most critical reforms being actively pursued by the current central government’s agenda citing that it is the need of the hour, which is precisely what we will be deliberating upon in this article. ONOE was mentioned by former President Ram Nath Kovind in his address to the Parliament in January 2018.

ONOE refers to holding elections to the Lok Sabha(LS), State Legislative Assemblies (SLAs), Panchayats and the Urban local bodies simultaneously. Contrary to the popular belief, it is not a new concept, rather one that was in existence since Independence until 1967, when ONOE was considered to be the norm. But all that changed due to defections, dismissals and dissolutions of the governments of the day. The practice was first broken in 1959, after Art 356 was invoked to dismiss the then Kerala government. Ultimately, several assemblies dissolved post 1960, leading to the separate polls system like the one in practice today.

Since then there have been several attempts to highlight the benefits of the ONOE system, in order to advocate bringing it back. The BP Jeevan Reddy headed Law Commission advocated for it in 1999.

Make no mistake, there are several benefits associated with holding elections simultaneously. First up is the issue of the cost of holding elections (According to a report the 2019 Lok Sabha elections set the ECI back by ?60000 Crores) . Today, there are elections that are held every 3 months on average, as a result some part of the country is focused on the elections and that also removes the focus of the people and the media from Governance, which is the second biggest issue. When the governments of the day get more focused on retaining themselves in power and appeasing the voters, the Governance takes a hit!.

Further, as soon as the elections are announced the Model Code of Conduct comes into play and that basically derails the development work, as it induces policy paralysis as no policy decisions can be taken during that time. Also, the election duties also ask more from the support staff, which are teachers in Government schools and colleges, and that basically also impacts their work life balance and the education delivery. It will also lead to reduced deployment of the security forces and that has its own costs.

ONOE will also mitigate the factor of horse trading, as the elected representatives are always on the lookout for opportunities whether at the center or the state level. With ONOE being held at fixed intervals, they will become a bit more sticky and the mobility factor will reduce even if slightly. In layman terms, the elected representatives will find it harder to defect, and ONOE will end up increasing the efficacy of the anti-defection law. It will also lead to reduced freebies to a small extent, and an improved condition of State Finances.

It will be wrong to consider ONOE as flawless, as ONOE comes with its own set of challenges. The tenure of the Lok Sabha Art 83(2) and the State Assemblies Art 172 are fixed as lasting for 5 years unless dissolved earlier. Then there is the case of Art 356 which says that the President's Rule can be imposed on the State. But what happens if the government at the center dissolves earlier or is unable to maintain majority for whatever reason, will the ECI then hold elections again or continue with President’s Rule for the remainder of the tenure. Moreover, organizing the ONOE will pose considerable logistical challenges, such as availing the Electronic Voter Machines (EVMs), personnel and resources, as organizing the simultaneous elections in all the bodies will be a massive exercise. To take into perspective, the population of India was ?54.71 Crores as per 1971 Census. It has ballooned to more than ?140 Crores.

Another Law commission headed by Justice B.S.Chauhan has said in its report that the simultaneous elections are not feasible within the existing framework of the Constitution. The Commission went on to say that the RPA 1951, and the Rules of Procedure of LS and the SLAs would require amendments for the ONOE to be appropriately held. The Commission also stated to get 50% of ratification from the states, but that is going to get overlooked conveniently as it has the potential to pose as the single greatest challenge to the ONOE.

ONOE also poses a challenge to the Regional Interests, as an IDFC Institute study report stated that there is a 77% chance that the ruling party at the center will win both the Lok Sabha and SLAs seats if held simultaneously. In the current form when elections are held recurrently, the voters can have their voices being heard more frequently.

But hands down the most significant challenge comes from the various Constitutional amendments that will have to be affected to make this a reality. Art 83 and Art 172 which deal with the duration of the Houses of Parliament and the State Legislatures respectively, Art 85 and Art 174 deal with the dissolution of Lok Sabha and the SLAs by the President respectively. Also, Art 356 on President’s Rule and the Representation of People’s Act 1951 (RPA '51) , will have to be amended to provide for stability of tenures of both the Parliament and the State Legislatures. Further, the RPA '51 will have to provide for the restructuring of the powers and the functioning of the ECI to ensure smooth simultaneous elections and also include the definition of simultaneous elections in Section 2 of the RPA ’51.

All of these challenges, however, feel miniscule in comparison to the fact that various estimates by the Niti Aayog and the ECI, maintain that the cost of conducting center and state elections in five-year cycle work out to be around ?10 per voter per year and when synchronized the same costs will come down to ?5 per voter per year.

And very hard to miss is the fact that such a electoral setup, will be a big win for the democracy, it will reduce the horse trading dynamics, will lead to a stable policy environment with focus on both the ‘Impact of Governance’ and the ‘Continuity of Governance’, and will for the majority of the 5 years at least, lead to a reduction in the populist schemes.

For the voters, the ONOE will lead to a reduced electoral fatigue and instead give the voter the impetus to go for decisive elections, with a clear mindset as to whom they want in the SLAs and whom they want in power at the Center driving the broader policy changes. Overall, it will lead to a more stable and less politically polarized climate which reaches its peak during the election season. People will be able to hold the respective governments more accountable and with more clarity and the governments of the day will have less blame game to offload their inability to provide proper governance.

Till now as we have seen the One Nation, One Election makes a strong case as to why it is the need of the hour, now only the question of its impact on the Federal setup needs to be answered. Some experts may say that the “One” in “One Nation One Election”, itself is opposed to the Art 1 of the Constitution that mentions India as a Union of States. Again, to reiterate some of the above and bring in new thoughts just to address this issue of impact of ONOE on Federalism, let's first take a look at the positives.

The positives of the ONOE on Federalism are policy synchronization, reduced disruption to governance, strengthening of the electoral accountability and the reduction of electoral fragmentation, reduced electoral fatigue and improved focus on governance.

The negatives of the ONOE on Federalism are that it may lead to overshadowing of the regional Issues and the increased risk of “One Size May Fit All” policy initiatives. The timing of elections and forcing the States to hold elections will cause erosion of their autonomy at least while implementing the ONOE. It will reduce heterogeneity and increase the homogeneity of the political landscape, and finally it will make it difficult for regional parties to compete with the National Parties.

No matter how difficult the above negatives might sound. Crystal clear constitutional amendments are the need of the hour. To elaborate on that, firstly, the elections to Parliament and the State must be held together, followed closely within 100 days the elections to the Municipalities and Panchayats. The amendments to Art 83, Art 172, and Art 324 are outside the purview of Art 368(2), thus don’t require states’ ratification. Single electoral roll and identity cards (Art 325), require States 'ratification. Even now, Parliament is the constituent authority to hold elections in the States, with only residual powers given to the SLAs. Finally, the concept of One Year, One Election may be a better choice to deal with early dismissals, dissolutions, etc. These all should be effective for the ONOE to go ahead and implement it. I personally don't think the Joint Parliamentary Panel should have any strong objection to the idea of ONOE, as the cost savings alone and reduction in electoral fatigue and continuity in governance are strong points to let the Bill sail through both the Houses.