Introduction:
Since independence, India, the world's largest democratic country, has witnessed more than 400 elections for the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies. We, the current generation, cast our votes in separate State and general elections. However, the BJP comes with proposal of an electoral reform (as they claim) called "One Nation One Election (ONOE)." What is it all about? Is it anti-federal as the opposition alleges, or truly a reform in the electoral system? Let's dive in and dissect the facts.
One Nation One Election (ONOE) refers to holding elections for the Lok Sabha
and Legislative Assemblies simultaneously. Since 2014, Narendra Modi, then
Chief Minister of Gujarat, has emphasized ONOE, citing many potential
developments if implemented.
In August 2018, the Law Commission of India, under Justice B.S. Chauhan, was
formed to assess the possibilities of ONOE. The commission stated that
constitutional amendments are needed and added that ratification from at least
50% of the states is required, meaning 50% of State Assemblies should support
these amendments.
Later, a high-level committee was formed, headed by the former President of
India, Ram Nath Kovind, on September 2, 2023. The committee included Home
Minister Amit Shah and many individuals from various fields. It worked for 191
days and submitted an 18,626-page report with 21 volumes of annexures on March
14, 2024. The committee suggested around 15 amendments to the Constitution to
implement ONOE. The proposal includes new Articles 82(A), 83(3), 83(4),
172(3), 172(4), 324A, 325(2), and 325(3) to be introduced and Article 327 to
be amended. The central government accepted these recommendations on September
18, 2024.
Committee's Recommendations:
- Every five years, an election will be held for both the Lok Sabha and Legislative Assemblies simultaneously. Also, elections for municipalities and Panchayats will be held within 100 days of ONOE.
- If any government, either in the state or at the center, dissolves within that five-year period, an immediate election only for that specific government will be held. The new government elected will serve until the next ONOE. For example, if ONOE is implemented in 2034 and a state government dissolves in 2032, the new government will have a tenure of only 2 years.
However, the bill has not yet passed. It will be discussed in the Winter
session of Parliament.
Historical Context:
After India gained independence in 1947, it held its first election in 1952.
Surprisingly, from then until 1967, elections for both the Lok Sabha and
States were held together. After 1967, Congress lost in Bihar, Punjab, and
Uttar Pradesh. President's rule was imposed in Uttar Pradesh in 1968, a year
after the election. Former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi dissolved her
government and called for early general elections in 1971, which were
scheduled for 1972. These actions led to the delinking of many states from the
Lok Sabha election. The political instability of that time brought significant
changes to India's electoral system. From this, we conclude that ONOE is not a
new concept. Even in the recent 2024 general elections, elections for
legislative assemblies in Sikkim, Arunachal Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, and
Odisha were held along with it.
Coming to the million-dollar question: why is the BJP adamant about bringing
ONOE? Let's see.
Positives:
1. Costs Under Control:
The government argues that conducting elections simultaneously will cost much
less than holding separate elections. On average, the Election Commission of
India (ECI) spends around ₹4,000 crores to conduct a Lok Sabha election. Then
imagine the cost for state elections. The ECI spent around ₹5,313 crores
between 2014-2017 just for elections.
| Elections | Costs |
|---|---|
| General Elections in 2014 | ₹3,870 Crores |
| Maharashtra in 2014 | ₹793 Crores |
| Jammu & Kashmir in 2014 | ₹110 Crores |
| Bihar in 2015 | ₹300 Crores |
| Gujarat in 2017 | ₹240 Crores |
| Total | ₹5,313 Crore |
The Election spending between 2014-2017
We didn't calculate the costs for the state elections in Jharkhand and Haryana
in 2014, or Tamil Nadu, Assam, and West Bengal in 2016, as exact figures are
unavailable. However, according to the Niti Aayog Report 2017 on simultaneous
elections, the expense could be around ₹4,500 crores if these elections were
conducted together, potentially saving up to ₹2,000 crores. Meanwhile, the
report "Poll Expenditure: The 2019 Elections" states that ₹60,000 crores were
spent during the 2019 General Elections. By the way, ₹1,35,000 crores were
spent on the recent 2024 general elections.
2. Not Easy, when MCC:
The Model Code of Conduct (MCC) is implemented every year from the announcement of the election date
to the result date in states facing elections. This restricts the central and
state governments from introducing any new major schemes or projects, even if
they are crucial for the people. For example, during the 2019 general
elections, the MCC was in effect from March 10 to May 23. During those 2.5
months, the central government could not initiate any highway projects or
healthcare schemes. Similarly, during the Karnataka assembly elections in
2023, the MCC was in effect from March 29 to May 13, preventing the central
government from implementing any schemes specifically for Karnataka during
those 1.5 months. To understand the impact, central governance was suspended
for seven months under the MCC for the 2014 general elections and some state
elections. The ECI's intention is positive, as launching schemes before
elections can directly influence the political narrative of the state and the
country.
3. Logistics Under Lock:
At least 3-4 states face elections every year. Logistical parameters like
requisitioning staff, premises, and vehicles, deploying security forces,
assessing law and order, providing remunerations, general arrangements,
polling agents, and counting votes require a huge government machinery effort
every year. According to the Niti Aayog Report 2017, the ECI enlisted
approximately 10 million people as polling officials for running and
supervising the 2014 general elections across 9,30,000 polling stations.
4. Way for Welfare:
Since elections are held every year in some states, leaders from national
parties and union ministers have to participate in election rallies and
canvass votes for their party's candidates, putting their ministerial work on
hold. This directly or indirectly hinders the welfare of the people and the
country.
5. Prioritizing Protection Over Election:
The ECI generally involves Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF) for providing
the required security arrangements. Besides CAPF, police forces such as State
Armed Police, Home Guards, and District Police are often deployed for the
smooth electoral process across millions of polling stations. so the internal
security of the state and the country, which is their primary duty, could get
compromised during election times.
The government claims that ONOE might address these issues if elections are
held simultaneously.
Negatives:
1. State Problems Set Aside:
When elections are held simultaneously for both the state and the centre, only
national issues will be the focus, while local problems of the state are
ignored. Do you remember any politician or political party discussing the
local problems of Tamil Nadu during the 2024 general elections? Even political
campaigns and narratives will revolve around national issues.
2. Ravage of Regional Parties:
The opposition alleges that ONOE increases the winning probability of national
parties and influences voter behavior against choosing regional ones.
According to research on voter behavior between the 1999 and 2014 elections by
the IDFC Institute, 77% of constituencies voted for the same political party
for both state and centre when elections were held together. When held even
six months apart, only 61% chose the same political party. However, there is
no empirical evidence that the same political party can win both state and
centre if elections are held with a minimum one-year gap. For example, in the
2014 General Elections, 41% voted for BJP, while in the 2015 Bihar state
election, 36% voted for BJP. If that election was based on ONOE, the BJP could
have retained that 5% and won the assembly elections.
3. Check to the Checkmaters:
The Consecutive state and central elections keep politicians in check and
accountable. For instance, in Tamil Nadu, the DMK won all 40 constituencies in
the 2024 general elections. However, they still have to face the 2026 assembly
elections. There is no assurance they will win the assembly too. So, for the
two-year gap, they work for the people to capture power again in 2026.
Similarly, in Karnataka and Telangana, Congress won the 2023 assembly
elections but could not win the support in the 2024 general elections in both
states. Voters in Karnataka and Telangana used the 2024 general election to
signal their displeasure with the governance. Governments can use consecutive
elections to understand the public's pulse towards their administration.
Imagine in ONOE, if you are not satisfied with a party's governance, you might
only meet them once in five years.
4. Game Grounds for Governor:
If a state government dissolves within three years, some parties might lose
interest in contesting and spending money on elections for just a two-year
regime. Even if they contest, parties would need to prepare a manifesto for
that specific two-year period, and the million-dollar question is whether
voters perceive those manifestos as fruitful or not. So, parties might avoid
elections, leading to Governor's rule, and the central government can have
direct control over the state. Although scenarios of dissolving governments
are rare after the S. R. Bommai case, these possibilities should be
considered.
Things to Think About:
1. Election Costs:
The Election Commission of India (ECI) spends around ₹8,000 crores to conduct
elections for the Lok Sabha and Legislative Assemblies every year. Meanwhile,
in 2014, the Government of India, both central and state, spent ₹30 lakh
crores on routine administration and welfare actions. So, doesn't a huge
democratic country spend at least 0.05% of its expenditure just on elections?
2. Increased Need for EVMs and VVPATs:
Former Chief of ECI S. Y. Quraishi stated that ONOE requires at least three
times the current number of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) and VVPATs,
which would mean nearly 40 lakh new EVMs and VVPATs. How then does the
government claim that ONOE will control expenses when it requires additional
costs to buy them?
3. Expense Control:
Does ONOE aim to control government expenses or the expenses of political
parties? If ONOE is implemented, all political parties might think to spend
their money once in five years, which could control their rampant spending.
The government should disclose how ONOE benefits the common public.
4. Legislative Approval:
The bill needs a two-thirds majority in both the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha for
its implementation. Since the BJP lacks this majority in both houses, how will
they implement the bill?
5. Synchronization of State Governments:
For argument's sake, if ONOE is scheduled for 2029, the Government of Tamil
Nadu, elected in 2026, could enjoy power for only three years, while the
Government of Karnataka, elected in 2023, will have an extended one-year
tenure to sync with the 2029 ONOE. How will the center bring these state
governments to a consensus?
Conclusion:
To conclude, while many countries like Belgium, Sweden, Brazil, and the US run
elections on an ONOE basis, the hypothetical question here is how the world's
largest democratic country, India, known for its massive population, could
implement ONOE.
Though it is "One Nation One Election," the challenges around it are "many"
for sure!
Tags:
Analysis