India Considers Major Electoral Reform with 'One Nation, One Election' Proposal

India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi's government is advocating for the "One Nation, One Election" initiative, aiming to conduct state and federal elections concurrently every five years. While supporters argue it could reduce costs and streamline governance, critics warn it threatens the federal structure, potentially concentrating power at the center and eroding regional autonomy.

 

India, known as the world's largest democracy, is characterized by its nearly constant election cycle involving 28 states and eight union territories, totaling around a billion eligible voters. Prime Minister Narendra Modi's ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has long championed the "One Nation, One Election" proposal, which aims to synchronize federal and state elections every five years. Recently, the Indian law minister introduced a bill in parliament seeking to implement this ambitious plan, which has ignited a robust discussion about its implications on power dynamics across the nation.

Proponents of the initiative argue that it could significantly reduce campaign expenses, alleviate administrative burdens, and enhance governance efficiency. Former President Ram Nath Kovind, who headed a nine-member committee endorsing simultaneous elections, labeled the proposal a "game changer." He pointed to potential economic advantages, with estimates suggesting it could boost India's GDP by as much as 1.5%.

However, there are staunch critics who warn that such a system could undermine India's established federal structure, concentrating authority in the central government and diminishing the autonomy of individual states. India's electoral landscape is currently segmented, with separate election cycles for general parliament members, state legislators, and local governing bodies, leading to a continuous cycle of elections at varying intervals.

The concept of simultaneous elections is not novel; it was standard from the first election in 1951 through 1967. A recommendation for synchronized elections has been proposed several times in the past, reflecting an ongoing debate in Indian political circles. The recent committee report, authored by Kovind, suggested stringent measures to align different election timings and proposed that local body elections be conducted within a specified timeframe.

The most compelling argument supporting simultaneous elections is the potential for financial savings. The Centre for Media Studies indicated that India spent over 600 billion rupees (approximately $7.07 billion) during the 2019 general elections. Nonetheless, critics caution that achieving efficiency in conducting elections might result in escalated expenditures due to the logistical challenges of accommodating 900 million voters with necessary resources like electronic voting machines and security personnel.

Former Chief Election Commissioner SY Quraishi highlighted concerns about the committee's cost assessments, particularly given that reducing election expenditures was central to the proposal's rationale.

Implementing the "One Nation, One Election" plan necessitates constitutional amendments and could require the approval of over half of India's state assemblies. While the BJP holds a simple parliamentary majority, it lacks the two-thirds majority essential for constitutional changes. The committee also explored electoral models from nations such as South Africa and Sweden to glean effective practices.

Recently, the cabinet gave the green light to the initiative and introduced two bills aimed at synchronizing elections, one of which focuses on the necessary constitutional amendments. The government is also signaling a willingness to engage in discussions with various political parties to foster consensus.

Feedback on the proposal has been varied; while 32 out of 47 respondent political parties supported it, 15 opposed it. Most supporters include BJP allies who value the benefits of reduced time, cost, and resource utilization during election cycles. Prime Minister Modi voiced his stance, stating that frequent elections disrupt national progress by linking welfare schemes to electoral timelines.

Meanwhile, opposition parties, led by the Congress, criticized the proposal as "undemocratic" and caution against it promoting the interests of national parties at the expense of regional entities. They suggest a focus on improving transparency in election funding as a more effective means of addressing cost concerns rather than sacrificing electoral cycles.

As this proposal evolves, it continues to be a focal point of Indian political discourse, reflecting broader questions about governance, federalism, and democracy.