One nation, one election: what it means for India’s democracy and you | LME 54

India had simultaneous elections for many years after independence. 

Now, with the One Nation, One Election bill, the Modi government wants to bring it back. 

But why is there so much opposition to it now?

Supporters say holding simultaneous elections will save thousands of crores and improve governance, but critics argue it will reduce accountability and weaken federalism.

It is all very confusing, right?

But don't worry, that's exactly why I'm here.

Let's break down the arguments of the Ramnath Kovind committee report,  based on which the bill was drafted and take a critical look at the claims and counterclaims.

Starting in January this year, we have come to you every week with explainers breaking down a complex issue, clear the confusion, and give you the facts. In today’s fast-paced news cycle, it’s easy to feel lost. Stories break so quickly, and often without the full context, leaving us with more questions than answers. Plus, many news channels are twisting narratives or spreading misinformation. That’s where ‘Let Me Explain’ comes in. 

It is the end of the year. If you think LME has simplified news for you, if it has helped you frame your worldview, then support us. Become a TNM-NL subscriber today!

The idea of "One Nation, One Election" isn’t new, but it’s certainly one that has come into sharp focus in recent years.

In the early years after India’s independence, simultaneous elections were the norm. In 1952 to 1967, we had Lok Sabha and state legislative assembly elections happening together. 

Then the shift away from simultaneous elections came about because of political instability. 

Let me give you three examples of how this cycle broke down.

In 1959 Kerala's Communist govt was dismissed after intense opposition from religious and political groups. 

In 1968 the Haryana govt faced rampant defections leading to the assembly's dissolution. Fresh elections were held, putting Haryana on a separate electoral timetable.

In 1971, Indira Gandhi dissolved the Lok Sabha early to solidify her position following the Congress split. This decision disrupted the alignment of national and state elections.

So over time, many such episodes meant that the electoral cycle for different states happened at different times. 

The idea of one nation one election was first proposed by the Law Commission of India in 1983. It was suggested as a solution to the disruptions and financial burden caused by frequent elections. Though the idea resurfaced in the 1990s due to coalition politics and midterm elections, it didn't gain much traction.

In 1999, the Vajpayee government raised the issue again.

By 2010, the Election Commission of India echoed similar sentiments, advocating for ONOE as a way to cut down on election-related costs and political disruptions. 

But the real turning point came in 2016 when PM Modi revived the proposal

A year later, in 2017, the Law Commission began a formal study.

In 2023, the government formed a committee led by former President Ram Nath Kovind to explore the feasibility of ONOE. What did the committee’s report say?

Frequent elections mean that the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) is in place for long stretches, which can stall policy decisions and slow down governance. The argument is that simultaneous elections could avoid this, allowing for smoother functioning of the government.

Harish Salve, a member of the Kovind committee, had some interesting points on this in his interview with India Today. 

It doesn’t have to be this way. The entire Union cabinet doesn’t need to campaign for every state, municipal, or panchayat election. The so-called disruption is really a choice, not an inherent flaw in the system. 

Also, the Model Code of Conduct doesn’t stop the implementation of existing policies or programs. It only restricts the launching of new programs, and it applies only in states that are going to the polls. So, the argument of policy paralysis may be more of a red herring.

Then there is the issue of the financial burden. 

The idea is that holding elections together could save money, and the Kovind report says that it could potentially boost economic growth, increase GDP, and reduce inflation.  So, on the surface, it sounds like a great idea to save money.

But here’s the catch – to hold simultaneous elections, we would need more EVMs and VVPATs, and the estimated cost of manufacturing these could be around Rs 4,500 crore. But the argument is that even with these additional costs, the overall expenditure would still be less in the long run.

Let’s put this in perspective. During Modi 2.0 (2019-2024), the total election-related expenditure came to Rs 16,255 crore, which is around Rs 3,251 crore per year. But when you compare that to the total Union government expenditure, it is just 0.09%—a minuscule portion. So, while saving money sounds appealing, the current cost of elections is relatively small in the larger scheme of things.

Elections are the first step in a democracy. So spending just 0.09% of the total annual GDP does not seem too much.

The Kovind committee says that by holding elections simultaneously, there can be a 1% increased growth in the GDP. But critics argue that there has been no scientific evidence put forth to support this claim. 

Next, migrant workers often need to travel for each election. Simultaneous elections would reduce this burden, making it easier for them to vote.

The issue of them being burdened can be addressed through other ways than holding simultaneous elections. Like postal ballots. 

The committee has also said holding elections together can reduce the strain on government resources like polling booths and officials, freeing up more resources for governance.

But it could also create new challenges, such as the need for extra personnel and security. The complexity of managing both national and state elections at once might actually put more pressure on the administration and create more confusion and chaos.

Next, Increases Voter Engagement – Fewer elections means less voter fatigue, leading to higher voter turnout and better overall participation 

Let’s dive into the numbers for a moment.

In the 2024 Andhra Pradesh elections which was held along with Lok Sabha polls, voter turnout was 74.41%, which is relatively high. But if you look at the Kerala Assembly elections in 2021, the turnout was similar at 74%. 

Again in the Tamil Nadu Assembly elections held at the same time, voter turnout stood at 72.8%, and in the 2023 Telangana Assembly elections, it was around 73.5%. Even in 2023 Karnataka saw a turnout of 73.19%. 

What this tells us is that there’s not much of a difference in voter engagement.

But that’s not all. Elections serve as an important feedback mechanism for governments—both at the Union and the state level. Many policies have been shaped or changed based on the feedback governments get during elections. 

Take demonetisation in 2016, for example. When reports of people struggling in bank queues surfaced, the government scrambled to fix the issues. The fact that elections were coming up in five states two months later would have been considered.

Similarly, when GST was introduced in July 2017 and dissatisfaction grew, the government had to act quickly to address concerns, and again, Assembly elections in Himachal Pradesh and Gujarat were just around the corner.

If we only held elections once every five years, we could lose that important flow of feedback, which could impact the way policies are made and adjusted.

While what he is saying is true in theory, in practice, election outcomes are also influenced by the power of narratives.

Under One Nation One Election (ONOE), voters may focus on national topics more during even state elections, further strengthening national parties at the cost of regional representation. 

It’s been argued that the share of votes for national parties in parliamentary elections has been dropping. In 1951, they had about 76% of the votes, but by 2019, it had fallen to 68.7%. Meanwhile, regional parties’ share has grown from 8% to 23%. This trend suggests that simultaneous elections could benefit national parties.

The biggest pushback against the current bill is the idea of shortening the terms of state assemblies to sync them up with the Lok Sabha. Basically, the plan is to hit a reset button starting in 2029. In states where elections are held after 2029, the state assembly's term will be cut short, ending in 2034, so that simultaneous elections can happen. For example, if Tamil Nadu and Kerala's next few governments complete their full term, elections would take place in 2031, but the assemblies would be dissolved just three years later in 2034. In Karnataka and Telangana, where elections are set for 2033, the assembly term would last only about a year or less.

But here's the catch—states whose assemblies are being shortened won’t have any say in the matter.

But the biggest stakeholder in all of this is you–the Indian voter. 

Write to me at pooja@thenewsminute.com and tell me what you think of ONOE. The Bill will be scrutinised now by the parliamentary committee. And public opinion could shape how elections are held.