The central government recently took a major step to keep its electoral promise and bring in a common schedule of elections for the Lok Sabha, state assemblies and local bodies. It introduced the 129th Constitutional Amendment Bill 2024 and the Amendment to the Government of Union Territories Act 1963 in parliament, which was then sent to a joint parliamentary committee to review and report.
Without a majority of its own in the Lok Sabha, this time the BJP was unable to usher in any big-ticket measure during its first 100 days in office, unlike in 2014 and 2019. The move for one nation, one election (ONOE) can be considered such a step. Whether it musters the required support and then stands judicial scrutiny is a different question.
The Constitution Amendment Bill proposes that elections to the Lok Sabha and state legislative assemblies be held simultaneously, followed by local body elections after 100 days. It may be useful to provide a context to this proposal now pending before parliament.
The first three elections in India—in 1952, 1957 and 1962—saw, by and large, simultaneous polls for the Lok Sabha and state assemblies. Subsequently, in view of the early dissolution of legislatures, the cycle of elections for the Lok Sabha and assemblies had varying schedules. As a result, Lok Sabha elections had their own schedule and different state assemblies came to have their different schedules. This led to a situation where some election or another was on every year in the country; sometimes several times a year. This trend led to the demand for a common schedule for the Lok Sabha and state elections.
Over the last four decades, the demand for simultaneous elections has come from various quarters. These include an Election Commission report in 1983, the 170th report of the Law Commission in 1999, the 2002 report of the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution, the 255th Law Commission report in 2015, 79th report of the parliamentary standing committee on law and justice in 2015, a working paper from the Niti Aayog in 2017, and a Law Commission draft report in 2018.
But the ONOE move gained momentum in earnest when the Union government appointed a high-level committee for the purpose on September 2, 2023. In the report it submitted, the committee headed by former President Ramnath Kovind recommended that simultaneous elections “will result in optimising scarce resources and also encourage voters to participate in the electoral process in larger numbers”. It added that disruptions “to governance and policy paralysis resulting from the application of the Model Code of Conduct and its adverse impact on economic growth will be mitigated”.
The cabinet accepted the committee’s recommendations, leading to the introduction of the Constitution Amendment Bill. The response to the proposed amendment is clearly along party lines. While NDA members have backed the proposal, a majority of the other parties have expressed strong reservations against the bill.
When introducing the amendment bill, the law minister marshalled a few key arguments. First, it would ensure that elections happen once in five years across the country and not every few months in different parts of the country. Second, it would allow a greater focus on governance. Third, streamlining elections would reduce the costs that staggered elections involve. For many, these arguments sound ideal to sanitise the system, ensure managerial efficiency, and reduce administrative and fiscal costs.
The lens one wears to decide the move’s worth is crucial. Does one look at the administrative and fiscal costs alone, or do political costs also matter? There is also an argument that ONOE may actually lead to a sharp increase in costs for ensuring both national and state elections across the country at the same time.
ONOE’s basic premise—the need for a common election cycle—implies that the logic of choice at various levels of government is assumed to be the same. But the evidence from the last decade proves otherwise. Voters have often been making distinctly different choices at the national and state levels. Between 2014 and 2023, there were 58 elections to the Lok Sabha and state assemblies. In 31 of these 58, the verdict for the state assembly varied from the Lok Sabha polls in the state. When the gap between the Lok Sabha and assembly elections was more than two years, the chances of variation were much higher.
Secondly, given the fact that the two elections are about a distinctly different set of mandates, it may be necessary to make the distinction. It could be argued that the focus needs to be on the autonomy of the two political spaces and the need for the voter to exercise their judgement independently when it comes to a national and a state level election. This would also be in consonance with the spirit of federal governance.
Thirdly, given that India is increasingly becoming an ‘election-only’ democracy, the right to vote and its exercise assumes critical importance. If it is to be exercised once in five years, it gives the Indian voter a more limited tool of participation.
Two alternative options could be forwarded. There has been a case made for ‘one nation, two elections’ too. If the Lok Sabha election is held in the first year, elections to all state assemblies and local bodies should be held in the third year of the five-year cycle. Local governments are under the purview of states. They may be held 100 days after the assembly elections. This framework could permit the voter to make clear calls for the Lok Sabha and assembly polls.
A second alternative is to specify a two-week window every year in which all elections scheduled for the year are held. This would prevent the nation being on election mode at all times.
One hopes there would be a meaningful debate across the country as the joint parliamentary committee deliberates this critical issue.
Sandeep Shastri
National Coordinator of Lokniti Network, Director (academics) at NITTE Education Trust, and co-editor, Electoral Dynamics in the States of India
(Views are personal)