Government Releases Explainer on 'One Nation, One Election'
The Ministry of Law and Justice has released a comprehensive document explaining the One Nation, One Election bill introduced in Parliament today. The bill proposes synchronising elections to the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies to address challenges posed by frequent elections, such as governance disruptions, excessive expenditure, and diversion of administrative resources. The initiative marks a significant step towards reforming India’s electoral process to ensure efficiency and stability.
Here are the arguments of Government of India on One Nation, One Election:
The concept of One Nation, One Election is not new to India. After the adoption of the Constitution, elections to the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies were conducted simultaneously from 1951 to 1967. During this period, general elections were successfully held in 1952, 1957, 1962, and 1967. However, this cycle was disrupted due to the premature dissolution of certain State Assemblies in 1968-69 and the early dissolution of the Fourth Lok Sabha in 1970. Subsequent years saw staggered elections across the country, leading to a fragmented electoral process that persists to this day.
Read Also : “Unashamed Attack On Democracy”: TMC’S Abhishek Banerjee On One Nation One Election Bill
In September 2023, the government appointed a High-Level Committee, chaired by former President Ram Nath Kovind, to assess the feasibility of holding simultaneous elections. The committee engaged in extensive consultations with political parties, legal experts, and business organisations while also seeking public feedback. According to the report, 80% of the 21,500 public responses received supported the proposal. The highest participation came from Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, Karnataka, Kerala, West Bengal, Gujarat, and Uttar Pradesh, reflecting widespread interest across regions. Out of 47 political parties that shared their views, 32 supported the move, citing benefits like reduced financial costs, greater efficiency, and fewer socio-economic disruptions. However, 15 parties expressed concerns, particularly regarding the potential marginalisation of regional voices and democratic fairness.
The report highlighted the economic and administrative toll of frequent elections. Business bodies like CII, FICCI, and ASSOCHAM supported the reform, emphasising that constant election cycles disrupt economic stability and divert crucial resources. Conducting elections simultaneously, the report argues, would significantly reduce government expenditure and allow resources to be allocated towards governance and development activities instead. It also noted that frequent elections result in the repeated imposition of the Model Code of Conduct, which halts policymaking and implementation of welfare schemes. The committee believes that synchronised elections will mitigate this issue, ensuring policy continuity and stable governance.
A phased implementation of the proposal has been recommended. In the first phase, elections to the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies would be synchronised. The second phase would align local body elections, including Municipalities and Panchayats, with the general elections within 100 days. To further streamline the process, the committee suggested creating a single electoral roll and a unified voter ID system for all three tiers of government. This would reduce errors, eliminate duplication, and strengthen the integrity of the electoral process.
The report also refutes concerns that simultaneous elections would undermine regional parties. It argues that such a system would allow regional issues to remain in focus while creating a more equitable platform for diverse voices to be heard. Additionally, simultaneous elections could encourage better leadership distribution within political parties, giving emerging leaders opportunities to contest elections and contribute to governance.
The One Nation, One Election bill represents a significant attempt to overhaul the country’s electoral system and address the long-standing issues associated with frequent elections. Proponents argue that it would foster stability, reduce election-related disruptions, and enhance administrative efficiency. While the reform enjoys considerable public and political support, its implementation will require constitutional amendments and consensus among stakeholders. If enacted, the bill could transform India’s democratic landscape, ensuring a more efficient and stable electoral process that prioritises governance and development.
Rationale for Simultaneous Elections
The points below are based on the findings of the report issued by the High-Level Committee on Simultaneous Elections, headed by former President Ram Nath Kovind:
Promotes Consistency in Governance: Due to the ongoing cycle of elections in various parts of the country, political parties, their leaders, legislators, and both State and Central Governments often focus their efforts on preparing for upcoming elections rather than prioritizing governance. The adoption of simultaneous elections would refocus the government’s attention towards developmental activities and the implementation of policies aimed at promoting the welfare of the masses.
Prevents Policy Paralysis: The implementation of the Model Code of Conduct during elections disrupts routine administrative activities and developmental initiatives. This disruption not only hampers the progress of vital welfare schemes but also leads to governance uncertainty. Holding simultaneous elections would mitigate the prolonged enforcement of the MCC, thereby reducing policy paralysis and enabling continuous governance.
Mitigates Resource Diversion: The deployment of a substantial number of personnel for election duties, such as polling officials and civil servants, can lead to significant diversion of resources from their core responsibilities. With elections conducted simultaneously, the need for frequent deployment would diminish, allowing government officials and public institutions to focus more on their primary roles rather than election-related tasks.
Preserves Regional Party Relevance: Holding simultaneous elections does not undermine the role of regional parties. In fact, it encourages a more localized focus during elections, enabling regional parties to highlight their unique concerns and aspirations. This setup fosters a political environment where local issues are not overshadowed by national election campaigns, thus preserving the relevance of regional voices.
Enhances Political Opportunities: Conducting elections simultaneously entails a more equitable allocation of political opportunities and responsibilities within political parties. Currently, it is not uncommon for certain leaders within a party to dominate the electoral landscape, contesting elections at multiple levels and monopolizing key positions. In the scenario of simultaneous elections, there arises greater scope for diversification and inclusivity among political workers representing various parties, allowing a wider range of leaders to emerge and contribute to the democratic process.
Focus on Governance: The ongoing cycle of elections across the country diverts attention from good governance. Political parties focus more on election-related activities to secure victories, leaving less time for development and essential governance. Synchronised elections would allow parties to dedicate their efforts to addressing the needs of the electorate, reducing instances of conflicts and aggressive campaigning.
Reduced Financial Burden: Conducting simultaneous elections could significantly cut down the financial costs associated with multiple election cycles. This model reduces the expenditure related to the deployment of resources like manpower, equipment, and security for each individual election. The economic benefits include a more efficient allocation of resources and better fiscal management, fostering a conducive environment for economic growth and investor confidence.
