India, the world’s most populous democracy, is continually holding elections. India’s electoral infrastructure is always in motion, with elections held on a nearly annual basis at the national and municipal levels. To minimise the expenditures, administrative burden, and policy stagnation associated with periodic elections, the concept of “One Nation, One Election” has emerged as a potential solution. The proposal proposes for simultaneous elections to the Lok Sabha and state legislative assemblies, as is done in many other democracies across the world. However, the concept raises substantial problems about viability, federalism, and governance. A comparative analysis of foreign election models can help India gain valuable insights.
Understanding “One Nation, One Election”
The plan is to hold simultaneous elections for the Lok Sabha (House of People) and state legislative assemblies across India. This method existed until 1967 when it was suspended due to political instability and the early dissolution of multiple state legislatures. Restoring this system will require constitutional amendments, institutional improvements, and exceptional administrative cooperation.
Global Comparisons: Electoral Synchronization Models
Several countries have successfully adopted synchronized electoral systems, offering useful parallels for India’s consideration:
- South Africa:
South Africa conducts national and provincial elections simultaneously every five years. This system has streamlined administrative functions and reduced election-related costs. However, municipal elections are held separately, ensuring that local issues are not overshadowed by national narratives. - Sweden:
Sweden holds general elections for its national, regional, and municipal councils every four years. The synchronization has strengthened Sweden’s administrative and electoral transparency while boosting voter turnout. - Indonesia:
Indonesia, a multi-layered democracy like India, holds simultaneous elections for its president, legislature, and regional governments every five years. This ensures electoral efficiency but has faced challenges such as electoral fatigue and logistical complexity due to its vast geographic expanse. - Germany:
Germany conducts federal elections every four years, while state elections occur independently, respecting its federal structure. This model preserves state-level autonomy while ensuring smooth national elections. - Brazil:
Brazil synchronizes national, state, and municipal elections every four years. This system has reduced election-related expenses but has faced criticism for creating long, complex ballots that can overwhelm voters.
Potential Benefits for India
India can draw inspiration from these countries while adapting the model to its unique democratic structure:
- Reduced Election Costs:
India’s elections are among the costliest in the world. Holding simultaneous elections could save billions spent on recurring electoral processes. - Governance Stability:
Frequent elections force governments to operate under the Model Code of Conduct, limiting policy-making. Simultaneous elections would minimize such disruptions. - Administrative Efficiency:
Synchronized elections would reduce the workload on security forces and administrative staff, enabling better law and order management. - Increased Voter Participation:
Studies from countries like Sweden and Indonesia show that synchronized elections tend to boost voter turnout by engaging citizens in a single, high-stakes electoral event.
Challenges and Concerns
Despite its merits, “One Nation, One Election” presents several challenges:
- Constitutional and Legal Hurdles:
Implementing simultaneous elections in India would require amendments to key constitutional provisions, including Articles 83, 85, 172, and 174, which govern legislative terms and dissolution powers. - Federal Structure at Risk:
India’s federal model allows states to operate as autonomous units. Simultaneous elections could centralize power, diluting state-specific issues and marginalizing regional parties. - Logistical Complexity:
Conducting nationwide elections in a country as vast as India, with over 900 million eligible voters, is a logistical challenge. Ensuring fair, transparent, and efficient elections on such a scale would demand advanced election infrastructure. - Political Instability Risks:
If a government collapses mid-term, holding by-elections could disrupt the synchronization process. Countries like Germany avoid this by maintaining independent state elections—a model India could consider. - Voter Confusion:
Like Brazil’s experience with complex ballots, India could face voter confusion if multiple elections are held simultaneously, particularly given the country’s diverse electorate.
Lessons for India from Global Experiences
Phased Implementation:
India could begin with phased synchronization by aligning state elections regionally, similar to Germany’s model, before transitioning to nationwide elections.
Election Cycle Management:
Brazil’s approach to synchronized ballots could inspire India to create user-friendly voting systems using advanced electronic voting machines (EVMs).
Balancing Local and National Interests:
South Africa’s model of holding separate municipal elections could help India preserve the significance of local issues while conducting synchronized national and state elections.
Legal and Institutional Reforms:
Like Indonesia, India must strengthen electoral institutions through reforms in electoral law, voter education, and administrative coordination.
The Way Forward
Implementing “One Nation, One Election” in India requires more than a political decision—it demands a national consensus involving all stakeholders, including political parties, election officials, constitutional experts, and civil society. The Election Commission of India must spearhead this reform through comprehensive electoral planning and legal restructuring.
India’s democratic framework is unique, and while global models offer valuable lessons, the Indian model must be tailored to respect its federal structure and democratic diversity. A gradual, region-based implementation with adequate electoral safeguards could ensure that simultaneous elections become a reality without compromising India’s democratic values.
Conclusion
“One Nation, One Election” is a bold and transformative vision for India’s electoral future. While the financial savings and governance benefits are undeniable, implementing the model requires careful consideration of constitutional amendments, administrative reforms, and global best practices. With the right legal framework, political will, and public consensus, India could reshape its electoral landscape—setting a global benchmark for electoral democracy.
Unmatchable…!