The Argument Against One Nation One Election: A Comprehensive Analysis

Recently, there has been a growing debate around the concept of One Nation One Election (ONOE), an idea that has been floated by some political entities to synchronize the timing of elections across all states in order to reduce election frequency. Proponents of this idea argue that it would save costs, improve governance, and reduce security burden. However, this article aims to discuss the rationale against this concept, as well as the potential drawbacks that would arise from such a move.

Reduced Centralization vs. Feasibility

Those who advocate for the One Nation One Election theory often mention the argument that India operates in a constant campaign mode, which diverts attention and resources often. However, the assertion that the overall election for one state significantly impacts the country as a whole is not entirely valid. In India, state elections are separate entities, and the performance of individual ministers in one state need not affect the campaign strategies or expenditures in another state. For instance, the incumbent leader of West Bengal, Mamata Banerjee, does not need to be extensively campaigning in other states like Karnataka. The central argument here suggests that breaking the federal structure would not prevent India from having a consistent campaign cycle but would instead centralize the entire system, weakening the very core of the Indian political framework.

The editorial in The Indian Express on September 5, 2023, delves deeper into the potential drawbacks of simulating elections, including the reduction in cost, improved governance, and reduced security deployment. However, the feasibility of implementing such a system is questionable given the constitutional provisions that delineate the terms of the Lok Sabha and state assemblies.

Feasibility and Constitutional Constraints

The idea of one nation one election is impeded by the constitutional provisions that mandate the term of the Lok Sabha to be five years, under Article 83(2) of the Constitution. Additionally, Article 172(1) sets the term for state assemblies to be concurrently in line with the Lok Sabha. These terms are not there to be tampered with lightly, as their stipulation is designed to ensure internal stability and continuity in governance.

Moreover, exceptional circumstances can arise, such as when the President may declare an early dissolution of the Parliament under Article 356, which would necessitate a separate election. This condition is a fundamental part of the Indian Constitution, preventing the centralization of the electoral mechanism by mandating that elections are to be held independently at their predetermined times.

Challenges and Drawbacks

The central idea behind One Nation One Election is to sync the timing of Lok Sabha and State Assembly elections, thereby reducing their frequency. However, this approach has significant challenges:

Reduced Cost of Elections

While proponents argue that frequent elections lead to political corruption due to huge fund-raising efforts, the feasibility of simultaneous elections brings into question the savings in election expenses. Instead, other factors like competitive populism need to be addressed. Centralizing the electoral mechanism would not eliminate the need for substantial financial resources; it would more likely exacerbate the central government's financial burden in organizing nationwide elections with the required security and infrastructure.

Focused Governance

Simultaneous elections can distract the government from its core responsibilities. With constant elections, politicians and officials are perennially engaged in campaign activities and strategies. The government faces a recurring cycle of campaigning, which diverts attention from crucial governance issues. A long-term solution would be to invest in better electoral systems and financial management rather than changing the electoral structure fundamentally.

Reduced Deployment of Security Forces

Potentially, simultaneous elections could reduce the deployment of security forces, but this is not a guaranteed benefit given the specific geographical and security challenges within India's diverse states. The security apparatus is complex and state-specific, necessitating careful planning rather than a blanket solution. Moreover, security forces play a critical role in law enforcement and cannot be redeployed at large without assessing the operational needs of different regions.

End of Horse Trading

While horse trading and coalitions can be problematic, projecting this issue will be resolved by holding regular elections is an oversimplification. Anti-defection laws are in place to curb party switching, but these can only go so far. Harsher penalties and better legal frameworks would address this issue more effectively than changing the electoral frequency.

Reduced Freebies and Improved State Finances

Contemporary governments have indeed become reliant on freebies to secure votes. However, the root cause of this issue lies in the political culture and the need for effective governability rather than the frequency of elections. Frequent elections pressure the government to provide immediate benefits to the electorate, which is not an issue that can be solved by syncing election dates.

Conclusion

The concept of One Nation One Election is fraught with challenges and lacks the evidence to support its feasibility. While it may seem like a viable solution to reduce election costs and improve governance, the reality is more complex. The central government and state assemblies operate within well-defined terms for a reason, and tampering with them would not address the underlying issues. Instead, addressing competitive populism, improving electoral systems, and enhancing fiscal management are more effective strategies to ensure better governance and public service.