One Nation One Election: Constitutional Questions and BJP's Newfound Urgency

The move must be seen in a context in which the pluralistic character of India's society and polity is under attack.

President Droupadi Murmu being presented a report on simultaneous elections in the country by former president Ram Nath Kovind who heads high-level committee (HLC) on 'One Nation, One Election', and home minister Amit Shah, at Rashtrapati Bhavan in New Delhi.

(Photo: PTI)

The Union cabinet yesterday approved a high-level committee's recommendations on One Nation One Election, paving the way for an ambitious plan to hold simultaneous elections for the Lok Sabha and state assemblies across the country.

The move, however, must go through several constitutional and political hurdles. Notwithstanding such challenges, the grand plan is a calculated strategy of the Modi-led BJP to drive the nation’s electoral landscape into its ideological contours.

It is fraught with ominous consequences for India’s democratic polity despite loud claims of purported benefits.

In fact, simultaneous elections to Parliament and state legislatures are nothing new to Indian democracy because they were held until 1967 when the Congress party was in power. The premature dissolution of some assemblies and the subsequent advancement of the general election in 1971, after the Congress party split, led to separate elections for the Lok Sabha and the state assemblies.

Even the demand for ONOE is not new. It was proposed by the Election Commission of India (ECI) in 1983, and by the Law Commission in 1999. While the NITI Aayog in 2017 pitched for two-phased Lok Sabha and assembly elections, the 21st Law Commission has also called for ONOE.

Constitutional Questions

The framers of the Indian constitution deliberately envisaged federal governance and political structures to avoid the concentration of political power. Given the diversity of our country, the distribution of political power is essential to prevent the alienation of different sections of people due to a unitary political system.

ONOE is undemocratic because the political scenario of a diverse country is unsuitable for simultaneous elections. The state legislatures in India do not owe their existence to Parliament. Instead, both the state and the national legislatures draw their powers and functions from the Constitution of India

In a multi-party political system, electoral issues and the mandate differ from state to state and from the state to the nation. The diverse political spectrum offers a range of choices for the electorate. Simultaneous elections would be a serious disadvantage for the regional parties as the national mood will dominate the election scene, thus giving undue political advantage to national parties.

Additionally, the move towards ONOE should not be seen in isolation but in a context in which the diverse and pluralistic character of India's society and polity is under attack. Attempts to impose one language, one religion, one market, one tax, one nation one election, etc, are the different facets of a grand plan to alter the exceptional characteristics of India’s secular democracy.

In the past, the BJP and its leaders have advocated a fixed term for the central and state legislatures, a two-party system, a presidential system, and even a rewriting of the Constitution. Therefore, this proposal for simultaneous polls is integral to the political project of the saffron brigade.

Newfound Urgency

The national parties, especially a highly centralised party with a strong leadership who can effectively play with nationalist emotions, are bound to benefit from ONOE.

Union Home Minister Amit Shah has already made it clear that the Modi government would go for the enactment in this term itself. Reports indicate that the NDA government may bring in legislation to this effect in the winter session of Parliament.

The BJP is still wounded by the 2024 verdict.

For the first time in a decade, the Modi dispensation is at the mercy of its key allies and a resurgent Opposition is leaving no stone unturned to unsettle this government at the slightest opportunity. The elections in J&K, Haryana, Maharashtra, Jharkhand, and later Delhi, can prove to be even costlier than 4 June for the Modi regime if the NDA fails to perform.

Therefore, the newfound urgency is to prepare for any eventuality even prior to the showdown in 2029.

Impracticality

In an age of a fragmented polity and fractured verdicts, with each state having a distinctive electoral arithmetic and political chemistry, which again is different from that of the Centre, any attempt to club these will create a constitutional void.

Suppose some state election fails to throw up a clear mandate leading to the formation of an unstable government resulting in a premature dissolution of the assembly. Should we wait for the full term of the Parliament to lapse to conduct elections in such a state?

Similarly, if all the states witness a clear mandate and the verdict is fractured in Lok Sabha elections due to which no government is formed, should all assemblies be dissolved to facilitate simultaneous elections? These questions suggest that such an idea is simply impractical.

Feeble Arguments in Favour

The protagonists of ONOE argue that simultaneous elections would save money, time, and resources. If this is accepted, one can also demand that elections should be held once in 10 or 20 years as it would save more time and money. Monarchies and military regimes often ruled by despots are more stable compared to democratic governments. Therefore, it is obnoxious to defend simultaneous elections on the grounds of expenditure.

Advocates of ONOE argue that frequent elections impede development and welfare as governments are periodically subject to a code of conduct for elections and political parties are perpetually in campaign mode.

Suitable measures can be devised to cut short the period of the electoral process. For instance, currently, elections are held in several phases due to a lack of adequate paramilitary forces to provide security for the polls. The strength of the same can be augmented to hold the elections in a day or two. The period of the election campaign can also be reduced.

In fact, the Lok Sabha elections of 1977, 1984, and 1989 were held over five days, and the 1980 election in only four days. Some of these elections were held at a time when the nation was facing serious security challenges owing to insurgencies. Indonesia, the third most populous democracy in the world (with 6,000 inhabited islands), holds its election on a single day. Why can’t India, with much superior military and policing capabilities, do it now?

The Law Commission’s report said that simultaneous elections, besides saving public money, would also reduce the burden on security forces and ensure greater involvement of the administrative machinery in ongoing development work rather than managing election preparations all the time.

But who should be blamed for this situation? It is the political parties that involve even Union ministers in municipal elections and by-elections adversely impacting governance.

In fact, there are more urgent electoral reform measures needed like state funding of elections, eliminating money power to provide for a level playing field for all parties, curbing the misuse of official machinery for partisan purposes, use of caste, religion and other parochial identities for electoral mobilisation, etc. Unless these reforms are undertaken, the serious livelihood issues of the people will always remain on the backseat.

(Prof K Nageshwar is a senior political analyst, faculty member of Osmania University, and a former MLC. This is an opinion piece and the views expressed are the author’s own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for them.)