The notion of holding elections to the Lok Sabha and the state assemblies at separate intervals, rather than concurrently, has been a matter of frequent debate within the nation. The idea of “One Nation, One Election,” long discussed in political corridors, recently gained renewed momentum. On the 1st of September, 2023, the Union Minister for Parliamentary Affairs, Shri Pralhad Joshi, announced the formation of a committee under the esteemed chairmanship of former President Shri Ram Nath Kovind. This committee was charged with the task of considering the feasibility of simultaneous elections, and it has been urged to deliver its recommendations expeditiously.

The concept itself is far from novel. Since 2014, the Bharatiya Janata Party and Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi have consistently championed the cause. Notably, in his 2019 Independence Day address, the Prime Minister remarked that, following the successful implementation of ‘One Nation, One Tax’ in the form of the Goods and Services Tax (GST), the demand for ‘One Nation, One Election’ had gained considerable traction. He reiterated this position in discussions with various political parties after returning to power and underscored the necessity of this electoral reform during a meeting of presiding officers in November 2020, declaring it not merely a subject of debate, but a pressing national need.

Additionally, the Law Commission has engaged with this subject in recent years. Its draft report from August 2018 touched upon the need for unified elections, while an earlier report by the Commission, chaired by Justice B. P. Jeevan Reddy, had raised the matter as early as 1999 in its 170th report. In that report, the Commission noted that such a reform would require careful and deliberate execution. Moreover, the Parliamentary Standing Committee has also voiced its support for this initiative, echoing the broader call for synchronised elections across the country.

History reveals that the idea of simultaneous elections is, in truth, deeply rooted in India’s democratic past. From the inaugural elections after independence until the year 1967, both Lok Sabha and state assembly elections were conducted together, thus making the concept of “One Nation, One Election” a reality for nearly two decades. However, the dissolution of certain state assemblies in 1968 and 1969 necessitated fresh elections at different intervals, effectively disrupting this practice. Since that time, India has held elections in staggered phases, a divergence from its earlier uniformity.

Thus, the discussion today seeks not to introduce an unprecedented idea, but rather to revive a practice that was once integral to the electoral framework of the country. Is the concept of ‘One Nation, One Election’ truly a necessity for the country and its citizens, or is it merely a matter of political or administrative convenience? Such a question naturally arises in the minds of the common populace. The ruling Bharatiya Janata Party has been a steadfast advocate for this notion. In contrast, the principal opposition party, the Indian National Congress, has generally assumed an adversarial stance, arguing that India’s federal structure could be imperiled by such an arrangement. Congress has hinted that the very essence of the federal system may be eroded, a stance that, perhaps, betrays a certain opportunism in their political calculus.

Regional parties, too, have expressed varying degrees of opposition. Some have outright rejected the proposal, while others tread more cautiously. Proponents of the idea cite fiscal prudence, suggesting that the unification of elections would drastically curtail the expenses associated with frequent electoral cycles. Moreover, they argue that such a reform would liberate the administrative machinery from the perpetual state of electoral engagement.

However, the detractors of this idea contend that simultaneous elections might disproportionately shift the electorate’s focus towards national issues, thereby eclipsing the significance of state-level concerns. There is a palpable fear that regional identities may become secondary and that the party with a charismatic national leader would gain undue advantage. At present, the opposition’s contention is that, with the Bharatiya Janata Party boasting a leader of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s stature, the party would inevitably reap benefits, not only in the Lok Sabha elections but also in the state assembly contests. Thus, it becomes imperative to examine, beyond the veil of politics, whether the concept of ‘One Nation, One Election’ serves the interests of democracy itself and, more crucially, the citizens for whom this system exists.

To gain clarity, one might reflect upon the origins of democracy, which trace back to ancient Greece, nearly two and a half millennia ago. The foundational principle of this system was that governance ought not to reside in the hands of monarchs or a privileged few, nor should it be indifferent to the plight of the citizenry. Instead, the collective will of the people was to guide the administration, embodying the very essence of democracy. In Athens, where the earliest experiments with this form of governance were conducted, the population was modest, allowing for the direct involvement of all citizens in decision-making processes. As populations swelled, however, this direct democracy gave way to representative governance, where citizens elected individuals to act on their behalf.

In the course of time, constitutions were drafted, and laws enacted to regulate this system, but at its core lay the process of election. This electoral mechanism, the very heartbeat of democracy, became the indispensable method through which representatives were chosen. In modern times, elections remain the bedrock of any democratic society, as no other system can so effectively ensure the selection of a government reflective of the people’s will.

In a country as vast and diverse as India, the complexity of holding elections cannot be overstated. At present, the nation is almost perpetually engaged in the electoral process, with direct and indirect elections being held for the President, Lok Sabha, Rajya Sabha, state legislative assemblies, and various local bodies including gram panchayats, municipal corporations, and more. Given this constant engagement, one might say that India is in a permanent state of electoral motion.

Thus, the question of ‘One Nation, One Election’ calls for an in-depth, impartial analysis. While the merits and demerits of this idea are hotly debated, one must ponder whether it strengthens the democratic fabric or risks undermining the very pluralism that defines the Indian state. The process of conducting elections involves an array of intricate tasks: registering voters, annually updating these lists, addressing objections, recording voter migrations, removing the names of deceased voters, classifying the voter lists by booths, and publishing them. Additionally, the issuance of voter identification cards and the maintenance of an enormous database of nearly 950 million eligible voters, within a population of 1.4 billion, requires not only precision but also the capacity to deploy this information efficiently at any given time. Alongside this, the Election Commission must remain vigilant in adhering to the electoral schedule, issuing statutory notifications, and determining and publicizing election timelines. It must implement and enforce the Model Code of Conduct, accept and scrutinize candidate nominations, conduct the elections, oversee the counting of votes, and declare the results. In truth, the governmental machinery is ensnared, or rather ‘entangled,’ in these innumerable responsibilities.

Though there exists an independent Election Commission for national elections and state Election Commissioners for the states, there is no separate administrative apparatus dedicated solely to the election process across the nation. Instead, officers and staff from the revenue, education, and various other departments are deployed to carry out electoral duties. This, naturally, disrupts their routine work and the public services they are meant to deliver, causing a significant adverse impact on daily administration. Furthermore, the cost incurred for these electoral activities is enormous.

This speaks to the administrative entanglement, but the repercussions stretch even further. Due to the constant cycle of elections, the Model Code of Conduct remains perpetually in place, leading to the suspension of various development projects. This halt in progress leaves a lasting, detrimental impression on the public psyche. These are merely the consequences within the governmental sphere, where the election machinery operates in perpetual motion. Yet, within the political arena, the winds of electioneering blow year-round, raising pressing social concerns and casting doubt upon whether democracy has veered towards an unhealthy distortion. Has the democratic spirit succumbed to a distorted reality?

Ideally, democracy is a system of governance that ought to be driven by the collective unity of all citizens. Yet, of late, political parties, their ideologies, the lust for power, and the pursuit of financial and other benefits have become the defining traits of the political landscape. Democracy has evolved beyond the mere concept of ‘people’s representatives.’ It has expanded to encompass the vast structure of ‘political workers,’ with party members, office bearers, booth representatives, and state and national organizers forming a sprawling network. This political apparatus, fueled by incessant elections, remains active round-the-clock, twelve months a year.

So deeply entrenched is this culture of political workers that one may even question whether many of these individuals engage in any other form of livelihood. It is not unreasonable to assume that political parties must spend enormous sums of money to sustain this cadre of workers. In fact, the entire political machinery, through its ever-expanding network of operatives, seems to have morphed into a business enterprise of sorts. The money required to sustain these operations is often derived from donations or electoral bonds, channeled by industrialists and businesspersons. 

Yet, this is no benign transaction. For the funds that political parties receive, ostensibly in the form of donations or bonds, are drawn from the profits of businesses, which, in turn, are generated from the goods and services purchased by the public. It is as clear as daylight that, ultimately, the vast sums of money fueling political activities, which run non-stop throughout the year, come from the pockets of the people themselves! It must be acknowledged that the entire expenditure borne by the government and political parties during elections is ultimately sourced from the pockets of the citizens. According to a survey report conducted by the Center for Media Studies, political parties expended a staggering sum of approximately ₹55,000 crores during the 2019 Lok Sabha elections. If we were to consider an estimate of the overall expenditure for elections to the Lok Sabha, Vidhan Sabha, and local governing bodies, it might well account for between one to two percent of India’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). This inevitable deployment of political workers ensures that the costs of politics and elections persist across the entire five-year cycle.

Secondly, in a democracy, once the people’s representatives have been elected and have formed a government, they cease to be mere representatives of their political parties. Instead, they ascend to the role of custodians of the central, state, or local self-governance bodies, and are no longer expected to engage in partisan politics. However, the relentless cycle of elections forces these representatives to continue operating as party spokespersons or leaders, constantly engaging in campaign mode. As a result, governance, far from remaining the neutral administration it ought to be, morphs into a perpetual form of political maneuvering—leading not to true democracy, but to what may more accurately be termed as “politicism.”

A third, and equally significant concern, is the absence of an independent administrative apparatus exclusively dedicated to conducting elections. This lack of dedicated machinery means that the government’s resources are perennially diverted to managing electoral processes throughout the year. More dangerously, the imposition of the Model Code of Conduct repeatedly halts developmental projects, adversely affecting the smooth functioning of day-to-day administration, stalling economic progress, and, ultimately, harming democracy itself.

To avoid these detrimental effects, the adoption of the ‘One Country – One Election’ model must eventually be considered, for without it, the damage wrought upon the nation will continue unabated. Admittedly, the concept of ‘One Country – One Election’ may now seem archaic; however, its proper implementation could yield benefits unforeseen by earlier critiques.

In a democratic system, citizens are required to cast their votes on three separate occasions—first, for the Lok Sabha; second, for the Vidhan Sabha; and third, for the local self-governing bodies. If we estimate the electorate to consist of 950 million eligible voters, then this three-tier structure necessitates a total of 2.85 billion votes being cast every five years. The notion of ‘One Country – One Election’ has evolved, especially following the 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendments of 1993, which integrated local self-government elections with those of the Lok Sabha and Vidhan Sabha. If local body elections are excluded from the ‘One Country – One Election’ framework, the very essence of this proposal will be rendered hollow, and the detrimental ‘politicism’ associated with these local elections will persist unabated. Against this backdrop, the notion of ‘One Country – One Election’ must encompass the simultaneous holding of elections for the Lok Sabha, State Legislative Assemblies, and Local Self-Government institutions. Should the nation resolve to implement this concept, it need not prove overly difficult. However, it would necessitate amendments to the Constitution, the Representation of the People Act, and other relevant legal frameworks. These changes would serve two purposes: the first, to create a temporary arrangement to synchronize the electoral timelines, and the second, to ensure that this arrangement becomes a permanent feature of governance.

As part of the temporary modifications, the term of some Lok Sabha, State Assemblies, or local bodies may need to be extended, while that of others may require curtailment. For the ‘One Country – One Election’ system to be established permanently, the term of all such governing bodies must be fixed at five years without exception. To achieve this, amendments to Article 83 of the Constitution, which governs the duration of the Lok Sabha, and Article 172, pertaining to the duration of State Assemblies, would be necessary. Likewise, the provisions of Articles 243-E and 243-U, which define the five-year term for Local Self-Government bodies, would also require harmonization.

In exceptional circumstances—such as the creation of a new state or local governing body—if midterm elections are required, they must be confined to filling the remaining duration of the term. Thereafter, the elections for all governing bodies would once again occur simultaneously. Additionally, to prevent premature dissolution of the Lok Sabha, State Assemblies, or Local Self-Government bodies, further constitutional amendments would be required to ensure greater stability. For instance, modifications to the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution may be proposed to curb large-scale defections, which could destabilize governments. An amendment might decree that if elected representatives wish to defect, regardless of their number, they would automatically forfeit their seats, thus negating the prospect of governmental collapse.

Moreover, additional constitutional reforms could mandate that, in the event a parliamentary or assembly seat becomes vacant due to death, resignation, or any other cause, the candidate who stood second in the previous election would automatically assume the seat, thereby eliminating the need for by-elections. Naturally, these suggestions are merely representative in nature, and any such reforms would require thorough deliberation and detailed study of the Constitution and corresponding laws.

One thing remains certain, however: the practical implementation of the ‘One Country – One Election’ concept is indeed feasible. For this to come to fruition, it is imperative that there be not only popular demand from the citizenry but also a genuine political will to embrace such a transformation.

If this concept is implemented, it is indeed true that democracy can be fortified! Yet, is the notion of ‘One Nation, One Election’ genuinely a necessity for the nation and its citizens, or is it merely being discussed for political or administrative reasons, or for some other purpose? It is natural for the general populace to question this. The ruling Bharatiya Janata Party, of course, supports this concept. In contrast, the principal opposition party, the Congress, seems to have adopted a generally adversarial stance. The Congress party appears to hold a somewhat dubious position, suggesting that the federal nature of India could be undermined by the ‘One Nation, One Election’ concept. Numerous regional political parties have also opposed this idea to varying degrees, while some are adopting a cautious approach regarding it. Generally, those in favor of ‘One Nation, One Election’ argue that it would reduce election-related expenses, prevent permanent administrative involvement, and so forth. Critics of this concept argue that if both Lok Sabha and state legislative assembly elections were held simultaneously, the focus might shift more towards national issues, overshadowing state-specific concerns. Moreover, parties with charismatic or nationally influential leadership would likely benefit disproportionately. Presently, the Bharatiya Janata Party, with its nationally popular leader, Prime Minister Narendra Modi, is believed to stand to gain from such a shift in election timing. Thus, it is imperative to undertake a politics-free analysis of whether ‘One Nation, One Election’ is truly necessary for democracy and for the citizens who are the essence of this democratic system. Let us, as impartial analysts, cast a discerning eye upon this matter!

Democracy, as a system, originated approximately two and a half thousand years ago in Greece, where the fundamental concept was to ensure that the governance, instead of being concentrated in the hands of a monarch or a few powerful individuals, was carried out in a manner that prevented suffering to the populace, allowing decisions to be made collectively by all citizens. Of course, during the initial experiment of democracy in Athens, the population was small, in the mere thousands, thus making it feasible to consider every citizen’s opinion on each decision (notably, women, slaves, and others were excluded from voting rights). As populations grew and the concept of democracy evolved, involving every citizen in each decision became impractical, leading to the development of a system wherein citizens elected representatives to manage governance on their behalf. This necessitated the establishment of constitutions and laws. The core importance of this system lies in the election of representatives, with the election process becoming the very soul of democracy. At present, there exists no alternative to elections for the establishment of governance in any democracy. Hence, the practice of elections is deeply embedded in democratic processes.

In a vast country like India, the significance of elections is magnified due to its immense scope. Conducting elections in such a vast and populous nation is an enormous challenge. In India, elections are a perennial process, encompassing presidential, Lok Sabha, Rajya Sabha, state legislative assemblies, municipal bodies, and more, with both direct and indirect elections happening throughout the year. In other words, the nation is perpetually in an election mode! The foundational tasks of preparing and maintaining accurate electoral rolls for around 95 crore voters, handling annual updates, addressing grievances, managing voter transfers, removing deceased voters, categorizing voter lists booth-wise, and ensuring the availability of voter identity cards are immense. Additionally, overseeing the scheduling of elections, issuing statutory notifications, setting and announcing election dates, enforcing the Model Code of Conduct, accepting and scrutinizing candidacy applications, conducting actual elections, counting votes, and declaring results involve a myriad of governmental tasks, leading to an administrative entanglement in the electoral process.

Although a separate Election Commission oversees national elections and State Election Commissioners manage those at the state level, there exists no distinct administrative apparatus for elections throughout the country. The duties of revenue, education, and other departmental staff are subsumed by election-related responsibilities. Consequently, their core functions and the services they are meant to provide to the public suffer detrimentally. Such disruptions incur substantial costs. This is merely one aspect of administrative congestion; however, it is equally crucial to note that continuous electoral cycles halt numerous developmental projects due to the Model Code of Conduct, thereby exerting a lasting adverse impact on the public psyche. This is the unintended consequence of the electoral fervor engulfing government circles. 

In the political realm, elections perpetually loom throughout the year, engendering social issues and casting doubt on whether democracy is veering towards distortion. Democracy, fundamentally, is intended to be a system governed by the collective unity of all citizens. Yet, contemporary political parties, with their ideological fervor, power ambitions, and pursuit of financial and other benefits, have turned into enduring elements of the political landscape. The concept of ‘people’s representative’ has now evolved into an extensive network of ‘political workers,’ encompassing a broad array of party members, office bearers, and booth representatives at both state and national levels. This political system operates ceaselessly, year-round, owing to the constant election cycles. The entrenched ‘activist culture’ is so deeply rooted that one might question whether many of these activists engage in any other occupation for sustenance. Political parties, benefiting from the low-cost nature of maintaining their cadres, have contributed to a scenario where politics seems to have transformed into a business driven by activist networks. The costs incurred are ultimately offset by donations from industries, professionals, or election bonds. However, it is misleading to assume that such expenditures are merely funded through donations or bonds, as these contributions stem from profits derived from public services or goods. In essence, the financial resources political parties allocate to politics for twelve months emanate from the pockets of the public.

It must be acknowledged that all expenditures related to elections, whether by the government or political parties, are ultimately borne by citizens. A survey conducted by the Center for Media Studies reveals that political parties expended approximately ₹55,000 crore in the 2019 Lok Sabha elections. Estimating the total expenditure on elections for the Lok Sabha, Vidhan Sabha, and local bodies, it amounts to approximately one to two percent of India’s GDP. The employment of political workers is an inevitable aspect of elections, leading to a continuous cycle of political and election-related expenditures over the entire five-year term.

Furthermore, in a democracy, once elected, representatives should transcend their political party affiliations and govern as leaders of central, state, or local self-government bodies. They are expected to refrain from political campaigning. However, the perpetual election cycle necessitates that these representatives function as political party representatives or leaders, remaining in a constant state of campaigning. This has transformed governance into a ‘politicism’ rather than a true democracy.

Moreover, the absence of an independent administrative mechanism for elections results in perpetual election-related activity, significantly impacting developmental projects and daily administration. This poses a grave threat to the country’s administration, development, economy, and, most importantly, its democratic integrity.

To mitigate these issues, the adoption of the ‘One Nation, One Election’ approach is imperative, lest the country continue to suffer profound and lasting damage. Nonetheless, it must be recognized that the concept of ‘One Nation, One Election’ is now considered outdated, and if implemented in its current form, it may not yield favorable results.

In a democracy, the electorate is called upon to exercise its franchise three times: for the Lok Sabha, the Vidhan Sabha, and the Local Self-Government. With an electorate of 95 crore voters, each voter is thus required to cast their ballot thrice within each five-year term, totaling an impressive 285 crore votes. The notion of ‘One Nation, One Election’ has evolved in accordance with the 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendments post-1993, encompassing elections for the Lok Sabha, Vidhan Sabha, and local self-government bodies. If local government elections are not included within this framework, the fundamental concept loses its significance, and the issues stemming from ‘politicism’ in local governance will persist.

In this context, for the concept of ‘One Nation, One Election’ to be effective, it must encompass simultaneous elections for the Lok Sabha, Vidhan Sabha, and local self-government bodies. Once a nation commits to this principle, implementation is not overly complex. However, it necessitates amendments to the Constitution, the Representation of the People Act, and related statutes. Such amendments would be required both as temporary measures and for the sustenance of the arrangement. Temporarily, adjustments may involve extending or shortening the tenures of certain Lok Sabha, Vidhan Sabha, or local body representatives. To perpetually enshrine the concept of ‘One Nation, One Election,’ it is imperative to standardize the tenure of these institutions to five years. This necessitates amendments to Article 83 of the Constitution for the Lok Sabha, Article 172 for the Vidhan Sabhas, and provisions under Articles 243-E and 243-U for local self-government bodies. In cases of exceptional circumstances like the creation of new states or local bodies necessitating mid-term elections, representatives would serve only the remaining period of those five years, with subsequent elections aligning with the established schedule.

Constitutional amendments must ensure that the dissolution of the Lok Sabha, Vidhan Sabha, or self-governing bodies does not occur within the five-year term. For instance, the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution should be revised to preclude large-scale party defections and instability. Such an amendment would stipulate that representatives changing parties, regardless of their number, would be deemed automatically disqualified, thereby preventing governmental destabilization and institutional fragmentation. Additionally, another constitutional revision should allow for the automatic succession of the number two candidate in the event of a representative’s death, resignation, or other vacancy, obviating the need for by-elections. These suggestions are preliminary and would necessitate comprehensive examination and revision of constitutional and related laws. It is unequivocally feasible to implement the ‘One Nation, One Election’ concept in practical terms, provided there is sufficient public pressure and political will.

It remains an incontrovertible truth that the implementation of this concept could indeed fortify democracy!

-Mahesh Zagade, IAS(rtd)