The process will face certain challenges in initial adoption. Still, the necessity outweighs the potential difficulties that Indian democracy would face in the coming decades.
Last week, the Union Cabinet of Prime Minister Narendra Modi accepted the recommendation of the Kovind Committee on One Nation, One Election (ONOE). The high-level committee was formed in 2023 and headed by former President of India Ramnath Kovind to look into the viability and feasibility of holding the Union, State, and Local elections within a single time frame. It submitted its gigantic 18,000-page report to President Draupadi Murmu in March earlier this year.
In a vast and diverse country like India, which has 28 states and 8 union territories, the electoral process is so expansive that each year, on an average, more than five elections occur, naturally making the concept of the ONOE commonsensical to adopt. However, the politicization of the concept and partisan politics have rendered a charged atmosphere where common-sense decisions are more challenging to adopt, let alone implement. Debates and discussions are underway on ONOE, and what is most necessary at this stage is to take stock of things and perceive the ONOE rationally and without partisan politics.
NOT A NEW IDEA
A score of political and so-called intellectual opposition to the idea is rooted in the fundamental disposition that the ONOE is not commensurate with Indian political practices. Nothing can be further from the truth. Such analyses fail miserably because of their vast historical and political ignorance. This was the default electoral process after Indian independence, where Union and State elections were held simultaneously in 1951-52, 1957, 1962, and 1967. The dissolving of various state assemblies afterward broke the synchronicity. However, the idea of the ONOE remained in veritable demand throughout the 1980s and 1990s.
The Election Commission of India argued for going back to the old system in 1983. Yet, the political fragility and instability of the 1990s made the idea unfeasible and politically costly. The Vajpayee government made a failed yet notable effort with the idea in 2003, as did the Law Commission in 1999 under the helm of Justice B.P. Jeevan Reddy. In power or not, the BJP has historically advocated the ONOE and has made it an agenda in its 2014 Union elections manifesto. After coming to power in his first term, PM Modi pushed for studies and discussions of the ONOE. The 2015 Parliamentary Committee on Law and Justice supported the idea, as did many supporting reports. Yet, the fact that needs to be understood about ONOE is that the concept is not new.
LOGISTICAL AND FINANCIAL SENSE
With the oldest and largest democracy in the world, India is the “mother of democracy”, which effectively means that there are extraordinary demands and challenges that India confronts that may not be faced by other democracies, say, in Western Europe. Perhaps India’s most considerable challenge is arranging logistics for its vast electoral process, many of which are still taking place parallelly. This year alone, India had an electoral cycle from March to June for the 18th Lok Sabha (Union) elections and four state legislatures—Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Odisha, and Sikkim. Four other state assemblies—Haryana, Jammu & Kashmir, Jharkhand, and Maharashtra—are currently undergoing elections. Similarly, two major state Assembly elections would occur next year, while nine occurred in 2023. This is besides all the local and municipal elections in different states throughout the year.
Yet, besides the logistical issues of preparing the electoral roll, arranging security, EVMs, and training/coordinating polling officers, there is the issue of finances. The Election Commission conducting Union and State elections incurs large expenditures—Rs 4,500 crore in organizing Union/State elections. Again, this is a fraction of the money spent during the elections. The candidates and parties are given expenditure caps, but the actual expenditures are considerably higher. Often, if not always, candidates are implicated with financial irregularities, thereby aiding corruption (and misuse of public funds in some cases).
Meanwhile, with simultaneous elections conducted within the same year (or in a limited time), the vigilance agencies can monitor them better, ensuring transparency and accountability. Not to mention, the Committee has suggested sizeable economic payoffs with the ONOE enabling a 1.5% (Rs 4.5 lakh crore) increase in the country’s GDP, reducing the uncertainty in investments and markets that occur in each electoral cycle and a notable decrease of 1.1% in the inflation.
IT’S A PROCESS
The verdicts by the political parties and intellectuals on the ONOE are unfounded because simultaneous elections will not be implemented by diktats but through the consultative democratic process. The appropriate amendments would be brought about, and ratification would have to be done by 50% of the states in India. Before that, the Parliament will be deliberating on the facets of the ONOE, including its mechanics, duration, and date of implementation. The High-Level Committee under former President Ramnath Kovind was a testament to the diversity of political views, with members from the opposition and former bureaucrats familiar with the intricacies of the electoral process. The Committee was detailed in seeking inputs from former Chief Justices of India, High Court judges, and a former Chief Election Commissioner, alongside some 21,000 public responses, of which strikingly 81% favoured the idea of the ONOE.
There is no doubt that change is difficult, but it must be brought when the need arises. The plethora of incongruent electoral cycles in India incurs a financial burden and logistical nightmare. The whirlwind of elections creates uncertainty and confusion, causing various political issues to dissipate or be lost in the process. When elections are made more streamlined, the public would also be privy to a clearer picture of development and better assessment of policies. This, in turn, would allow a better marker for the public to distinguish between the work of political parties at the Union and State level, given that the public can compare and contrast the outputs of parties at different levels (Union and State) and between different States.
Indeed, the process will face certain challenges in initial adoption. Still, the necessity outweighs the potential difficulties that Indian democracy would face in coming decades, with the burden of electioneering and the electoral process being daunting to the exchequer and disruptive to government work. Hitherto, process has been democratic, and the accompanying changes in existing laws/rules will ensure true spirit of Indian democratic process. What we need to be most aware of is the paranoia and confusion brought about by politicization that will only harm the development of this warranted electoral reform for Bharat.
Prof Santishree Dhulipudi Pandit is the Vice Chancellor of JNU.