One Nation, One Election: 'Arre charcha to karo bhai'

"Outright ye keh dena ki hum 'One Nation, One Election' ke paksh mein nahi; arre charcha to karo bhai (how does it make sense to outrightly state that we don't support 'One Nation, One Election', at least let's discuss)."

The aforementioned words -- reflecting evident frustration -- were said by Prime Minister Narendra Modi in the Parliament of India. His pitch was simple -- let's at least discuss the idea of 'One Nation, One Election' before simply rejecting it.

So, let's do exactly that -- discuss (or as our PM would put it -- charcha).

One Nation, One Election: The context

On September 1, 2023, a committee headed by former Indian President Ram Nath Kovind was formed to explore the possibility of 'One Nation, One Election' -- which simply means holding Lok Sabha and all Vidhan Sabha polls simultaneously.

Ever since this declaration, major political parties, intelligentsia, and of course, the public have all been weighing the merits and demerits of this idea. Meanwhile, the Opposition parties have dismissed the proposition altogether -- Congress leader Rahul Gandhi called it "an attack on the Indian Union"; AAP convener Arvind Kejriwal has bashed the move; Asaduddin Salahuddin Owaisi called it 'unconstitutional'; and the DMK too is opposing the idea.

Simultaneously, Union Home Minister Amit Shah has joined the panel set up to explore the possible implementation of 'One Nation, One Election' even as senior Congress leader Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury refused to join the committee.

So, the status as it remains today is this -- while the incumbent government has hailed it as a 'revolutionary policy', the Opposition is calling it an 'abuse of power'. As usual, media channels have been fighting Prime Time battles on the issue with no real conclusion (or consensus).

But we can do better. Let's explore these aspects of 'One Nation, One Election' and get a better understanding of the topic at hand:-

What is One Nation, One Election?

Why is it being hailed by one side?

Why is it being derided by all the other sides?

And is it feasible?

What is One Nation, One Election?

If you look at the existing political system in India, elections to the Lok Sabha and the various Legislative Assemblies take place separately -- they are held when their respective five-year terms come to an end. As these tenures do not coincide with each other, elections are held in different states in different years and months. 

In contrast, the 'One Nation, One Election' proposal suggests that Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assembly elections must be held parallelly. In the proposed system, the voters would cast their votes for their state and national representatives on the same day.

Interestingly, this is not a new concept in the Indian political system. In fact, after the adoption of the Constitution, elections to Lok Sabha and all State Legislative Assemblies were held together in 1951-52. Subsequently, this electoral methodology was followed in 1957, 1962, and then in 1967, when it was finally stopped.

However, the election cycle was disrupted when some State Legislative Assembly were prematurely dissolved in 1968 and 1969. Some would argue that this disruption began in 1967 itself when Congress started losing power in states like Bihar, Punjab, and Uttar Pradesh. These states voted either non-Congress governments or coalition governments to power.

In 1968, President's Rule was imposed in Uttar Pradesh -- just one year after the State Assembly elections. Later in 1971, the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi called for early general elections -- which were originally supposed to be held in 1972. This, once again, led to the delinking of the general election schedule from the state elections. 

Essentially, the model of 'One Nation, One Election' was done away with due to political instability in different states at different times. This idea remained in cold storage until the incumbent central government floated it as the revolutionary transformation that our political system urgently needs.

One Nation, One Election: The Benefits

Overcoming the Model Code of Conduct: The Model Code of Conduct is a set of guidelines which are issued by the Election Commission of India to regulate political parties and candidates prior to the elections. From the day the general election date is announced to the completion of the election process, only routine administrative activities are allowed. Any other development programme, welfare scheme or a capital project shall remain suspended. Similarly, state governments are not allowed to announce any new project or scheme after the election date is announced. 

For context, the model code of conduct was set in from March 10, and it remained in place till May 23 during the 2019 general elections. As a result, the central government could not initiate any new highway project or welfare scheme during these 2.5 months. Likewise, during the 2023 Karnataka Assembly elections, the model code of conduct remained in place between March 29 and May 13. 

Effectively, the model of conduct stops the government from functioning to its full extent for months at a stretch. This is done to ensure that the incumbent governments do not roll out any last-minute welfare scheme to lure voters. Consequently, governance and development activities remain suspended due to recurring state elections, impacting the overall growth of the country's GDP.

It is expected that 'One Nation, One Election' will solve this very crucial problem as elections will take place only once in 5 years under this model. Hence, the state governments and the Centre would not lose several crucial months over model code of conduct restrictions.

Election Expenditure: Let's start with a figure — Rs 60,000 crore. This was the amount spent on the 2019 Lok Sabha elections, making it the most expensive election in the world at the time. Unofficial estimates suggest the figure could be even higher. It's not just the Lok Sabha elections; state elections also impose a significant financial burden on the system. In 2014, Rs 793 crore was spent on the Maharashtra elections.

The logistical costs of setting up polling stations, and deploying election officials and security personnel further inflate the overall expenditure. According to a research paper by Bibek Debroy and Kishore Desai, simultaneous elections could save thousands of crores of rupees.

Governance Downtime: The time government officials spend on election duty is time that could otherwise be devoted to governance. From civil servants to teachers, their routine work is disrupted by elections. This disruption could be limited to once every five years with the implementation of 'One Nation, One Election.'

Even politicians and security personnel would save considerable time if elections were held only once every five years. This would also be beneficial for the country’s security apparatus. Thus, 'One Nation, One Election' could offer both direct and indirect benefits.

One Nation, One Elections: The sceptical side

No level-playing field: It is argued that if Lok Sabha elections are held concurrently, 77 per cent of the voters would be more likely to vote for the same party. This was found in a 2015 study conducted by the IDFC Institute. The authors of this study studied the electoral data from four rounds of Lok Sabha elections -- 1999, 2004, 2009, and 2014.

In comparison, if the elections (Lok Sabha and State Assembly) take place just six months apart, the percentage of voters more likely to vote for the same party drops to 61 per cent. The reasons given for this are -- second thoughts among voters, regretting the first choice, and being not as impressed by a party as they were before the elections.

For context, let's take Bihar. During the 2014 Lok Sabha elections, about 41 per cent of Bihar voters voted for the BJP, but in the 2015 state elections, this number fell to 36 per cent. If both these elections had taken place simultaneously, there is a high chance that the BJP might have swept the state elections too.

Local issues may get overshadowed: It is also speculated that 'One Nation, One Election' may give precedence to national issues while the local issues may get overshadowed. Eventually, the national parties may benefit while the smaller regional parties would likely bear the brunt.

Accountability: Critiques of the 'One Nation, One Election' idea argue that under the current system, the party in office is constantly under the scanner. If the party fails to deliver after a Lok Sabha win, they may suffer its consequences in the state elections. Thus, keeping our politicians on their toes constantly. 

When elections are always around, it creates pressure on political parties to always be in check -- a condition that might not be the same under the 'One Nation, One Election' model. There's a chance that the government may get complacent if elections are held only once every five years. 

Execution: As they say -- the devil lies in the details. If the 'One Nation, One Election' model has to be implemented, a lot of state governments will have to agree to cut short their tenures. Also, the tenures of certain other state governments would have to be extended by a few years. This would mean bringing all the different political parties to the same page -- a herculean task given the sharp political divide that exists today.

If at all, we manage to pull this, what would happen if the government in any state (or at the Centre) loses the vote of confidence? If the central government or any of the state governments are dissolved before their stipulated terms, the entire election schedule would again go out of sync.

One Nation, One Election: Is it feasible?

The Election Commission of India has clearly stated that it is capable of conducting simultaneous state assembly and Lok Sabha elections smoothly. There is no reason to doubt this claim, as several states (such as Odisha in 2024) have already held Lok Sabha and state elections concurrently.

Now, playing devil's advocate — yes, it would be challenging to get all political parties to agree on 'One Nation, One Election' since this would mean cutting short the terms of many state governments. 

Here, the central government (led by the BJP) could demonstrate some magnanimity by scheduling the first 'One Nation, One Election' in a way that requires state governments led by the BJP to curtail their tenures, rather than those led by other parties. This would give other parties confidence that 'One Nation, One Election' is not a means for the Centre to establish 'One Nation, One Party'.

What if governments fail mid-term? We could adopt a model similar to that of the United States and hold mid-term elections after 2.5 years. If any state or the central government loses its majority, an election could be held within 2.5 years, and the tenure of the newly elected government would be just 2.5 years. In this way, the election schedule would remain synchronised.

All other concerns about the 'One Nation, One Election' model are speculative. Issues can be addressed as they arise. Meanwhile, the benefits of the 'One Nation, One Election' idea are definitive. It would undoubtedly save money and increase productivity — two factors that could significantly accelerate our journey towards becoming a developed nation.

Moreover, the policy continuity provided by governments elected under the 'One Nation, One Election' system would be crucial in attracting more global investments.

In conclusion, the 'One Nation, One Election' model may seem outrageous because most of us have never seen such a political system in practice, but it is certainly worth discussing, given its potential benefits — so why reject it outright? Arre charcha to karo bhai.