India’s “One Nation, One Election” Proposal: A Comprehensive Analysis
In a significant political move, the Central government of India recently established a panel, spearheaded by former President Ram Nath Kovind, to delve into the feasibility of the ‘one nation, one election’ (ONOE) initiative. The core objective of this proposal is to synchronize the Lok Sabha and State Assembly elections across all Indian states, aiming to curtail the frequency of electoral exercises throughout the country.
Historically, the concept of ONOE isn’t novel. Post the enforcement of the Constitution in 1950, India witnessed its first simultaneous general elections for both the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies in 1951-1952. This synchronized electoral practice continued until 1967. However, it faced disruptions due to various political events, notably the dismissal of the Kerala government in 1959 under Article 356.
The Law Commission of India, in its 2018 draft report chaired by Justice B. S. Chauhan, undertook a thorough analysis of the constitutional and legal dimensions of simultaneous elections. While the Commission underscored the need for significant amendments to the existing framework to realize ONOE, it also enumerated potential advantages. These include fiscal savings, alleviation of administrative burdens, and the assurance of timely policy execution.
However, the ONOE proposal doesn’t come without its share of criticisms and concerns. The primary apprehension revolves around its practicality. The Indian Constitution stipulates a five-year tenure for both the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies. But provisions, such as Article 356, permit earlier dissolutions in specific scenarios. This provision raises pivotal questions: What if a government falls before completing its tenure? Critics further argue that ONOE might be at odds with India’s federal ethos, as articulated in Article 1. They advocate for the current system of recurrent elections, emphasizing that it fosters greater accountability and prevents the conflation of national and state-level issues.
Recent political murmurs suggest the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) is contemplating introducing ONOE legislation in an imminent special Parliament session. This potential move has ignited debates, especially concerning the BJP’s stance vis-à-vis a consolidating Opposition. If ONOE materializes, it could recalibrate political strategies in India. The Opposition, which is currently strategizing to present a united front against the BJP, might grapple with seat-sharing complexities at the assembly level. Furthermore, the financial chasm between the BJP and its regional counterparts could widen in an ONOE framework.
From a constitutional perspective, the road to ONOE is strewn with challenges. Leading constitutional experts opine that its implementation would necessitate a series of amendments to the Constitution, each demanding substantial parliamentary and state endorsements. Moreover, questions loom large about handling situations where governments prematurely lose their mandate.
In conclusion, the discourse around ONOE is intricate, with compelling arguments on both sides of the aisle. While it promises administrative streamlining and potential cost efficiencies, it simultaneously poses constitutional quandaries and hints at a seismic shift in India’s political landscape. As the debate rages on, the global community keenly observes, given India’s esteemed position as the world’s most populous democracy.