Why ONOE is not just about better logistics
The Union cabinet has recently taken a historic step by approving the one nation, one election plan, proposing a significant shift in how polls are conducted across India. The initiative aims to synchronise elections at the Lok Sabha and assembly levels in its first phase, with plans to extend the model to urban body and panchayat polls in the second.
By adopting this approach, India stands poised to redefine its electoral landscape, fostering greater efficiency and coherence in governance. The growing consensus among politicians, academicians and administrators highlights not just the logistical benefits but also the substantial economic and administrative advantages this reform promises for our nation.
The high-level committee chaired by former President Ram Nath Kovind has revealed that a strong majority of parties—32 out of 47—are in favour of the ONOE initiative. This reform has been long overdue and promises to revolutionise how we conduct elections—often called a festival of democracy in India.
India held simultaneous elections from independence until 1962, a practice that streamlined the electoral process and minimised disruptions to governance. However, political complexities at the state level led to a divergence from this model. The idea of synchronising elections isn’t new; it was first proposed in 1962 when the Election Commission of India (ECI) emphasised “it is obviously desirable that this duplication of efforts, if possible, be avoided”. The conversation gained momentum in 1983, when the ECI reiterated its advocacy for this approach in its annual report, recognising its potential to enhance efficiency.
Fast forward to 2015, the standing committee on personnel, public grievance, law and justice also championed this reform, highlighting several compelling reasons: the significant costs incurred from conducting separate elections, the policy paralysis often triggered by the Model Code of Conduct, the adverse impact on essential services during poll periods, and the strain on administrative resources that could be better utilised elsewhere.
Given this historical context, it is intriguing to reflect on the stance of the Congress, which held power from 1951 to 1962 without any qualms about simultaneous elections. Why, then, does the party now resist a return to this effective and streamlined electoral model? This question invites us to consider the broader implications of electoral reform and its potential to enhance governance, efficiency and ultimately, the democratic process in India.
Critics of the ONOE initiative often argue that it may lead to voters casting similar votes for both Lok Sabha and assembly elections, thereby diminishing the distinctiveness of regional issues. However, this argument reeks of the fallacy of viewing an Indian voter as gullible and uninformed. The elections for the Lok Sabha and state assemblies focus on different sets of issues—national elections revolve around governance, security, and economic policies, while state elections address local concerns such as education, health and infrastructure. The electorate is increasingly aware of these distinctions, and voter preferences are influenced by the specific challenges they face in their states.
By allowing citizens to consider both national and local issues concurrently, the ONOE can enhance voter engagement, potentially leading to higher turnout rates. Historical evidence from countries like Australia and Canada—where simultaneous elections have been successfully implemented—demonstrates that voters can make nuanced choices without sacrificing local concerns. For example, in Australia, voters distinguish between federal and state candidates based on their specific agendas, thereby enriching the process.
Moreover, the argument that local issues will take a back seat under ONOE is flawed. Evidence from the 2019 elections in India shows that the vote share of the BJP in simultaneous assembly elections was lower compared to the general elections, indicating that voters do prioritise local governance. This pattern suggests voters are capable of discerning between local and national issues, reinforcing the notion that simultaneous elections do not diminish the importance of regional concerns.
Another criticism revolves around federalism. However, we must remember that India was a federal structure even during the early years of independence, when elections were held simultaneously. The historical context illustrates that a dual focus on national and local governance can coexist harmoniously and an Indian voter is capable of making the necessary distinctions
The economic argument is also compelling. The cost of conducting the 2009 Lok Sabha elections was approximately Rs 1,115 crore, which tripled to around Rs 3,870 crore by 2014. This exponential increase highlights the financial burden of frequent elections. Furthermore, we currently lack a separate cadre of staff dedicated to elections; administrative personnel often juggle multiple responsibilities. While establishing a dedicated electoral cadre is a long-term goal, implementing ONOE can enhance administrative efficiency and optimise human resource investment.
ONOE is not just a logistical reform. It represents a crucial step in the maturation of India’s democracy. The reform instils its faith in the political acumen of the Indian voter and affirms that the potential benefits far outweigh the concerns raised by critics. By fostering cooperation, efficiency and a strengthened democratic fabric, this initiative can usher in a new era for governance. With careful planning and broader consultation, the ONOE can help transform India’s festival of democracy.
(Views are personal)
Tulla Veerender Goud | Spokesperson, Telangana, BJP