By Poonam I Kaushish
As the Mahakumbh wraps up in Prayagraj, bringing together 60 crore people over 45 days, and with spring blooming in a tapestry of colorful flowers, the BJP experiences a renewed spring in its step following hat-trick victories in Delhi, Maharashtra, and Haryana. Refocused, the party is now turning its attention back to Prime Minister Modi’s long-standing desire: One Nation One Election (ONOE). This ambitious initiative, emphasized by the Law Ministry, argues that simultaneous polls do not infringe upon citizens’ rights nor violate the right to vote and contest.
It asserts that ONOE does not breach the Constitution’s basic structure or federalism, but instead would enhance political diversity and inclusivity, introduce new faces into politics, and prevent certain leaders from monopolizing significant roles. This was its response to the Joint Parliamentary Committee reviewing the ONOE Bill, which raised over 20 questions regarding real savings—given that mid-term elections would necessitate the imposition of the Model Code of Conduct—and whether irregularities at polling booths would necessitate re-polls for impacted Assembly and Parliamentary seats.
The government bolstered its argument by stating that ONOE “entails a more equitable allocation of political opportunities and responsibilities within Parties.” It noted that India’s democratic journey began with parallel elections for Lok Sabha and State Assemblies, although it was Indira Gandhi’s Congress government that ultimately dismantled synchronized elections in 1971. This led to many unstable governments at both the Centre and State levels, resulting in the premature dissolution of Lok Sabha and Assemblies.
But are we truly moving toward ONOE? Especially considering the country has held over 450 elections for Lok Sabha and State Assemblies so far. The Law Commission has advocated for simultaneous elections three times—in 1999, 2015, and 2018—claiming they would “liberate citizens, Parties, and Government from the burden of asynchronous elections.” Moreover, the Election Commission estimated the cost of hosting simultaneous elections at Rs 5,500 crore. So, would this be in the best national interest?
Prime Minister Modi believes so, having championed ONOE since 2016. He argues it would grant netas and Party workers the time to promote citizen-centric schemes while also saving the Exchequer and Party funds. While his Party and allies like JD(U) and TDP support it, Congress, Trinamool, and Samajwadi label it as a “gimmick,” impractical, unfeasible, and anti-democratic.
Undoubtedly, simultaneous elections could be financially beneficial, helping to avoid governance disruptions and policy paralysis typically caused by frequent elections. Once a Party is elected and a Government is formed, it can focus on governance and take decisive actions for public benefit without constantly worrying about its effect on voters.
Consider this: numerous worthwhile initiatives get shelved due to electoral considerations that might upset a caste, community, religion, or region, all leading to policy stagnation, mismanagement, and lackluster implementation.
Currently, the cacophony of campaigns, wasteful spending, endless rallies, and road blockages consistently disrupt our daily lives. Governance suffers as Prime Minister, Ministers, and Chief Ministers dedicate valuable time to campaigning for their Parties, and this turmoil disrupts our political landscape—left, right, and center—week after week. It is an unending cycle that continues year after year.
In truth, with State after State holding elections annually, managing both Central and State Governments has become increasingly challenging. Amid this ongoing cycle of nerve-racking, cash-guzzling elections, the solution to India’s chronic Perpetual Election Syndrome (PES) may lie in the single mega-election every five years.
While this approach could serve to eliminate incompetence, malfeasance, and casual governance, it is a concept that warrants extensive debate at all levels. The benefits and drawbacks must be meticulously evaluated before Parliament provides its approval. The proposed change would involve altering the fundamental framework of the Constitution.
With 15 Parties opposing ONOE, challenges arise regarding procedural specifics, the Government’s apparent disregard for citizens’ rights to replace underperforming Governments, and fears that such a system would undermine the federal structure of diverse administrations. Furthermore, the intricate legal processes involved in amending the Constitution must be cautiously navigated to alleviate concerns about violating federalism.
Nevertheless, the path ahead is complicated and far easier stated than done. Following the conclusion of three State elections, the Prime Minister has already initiated preparations for the Bihar Assembly election in November, followed by Assam, West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, and Kerala in the following year. Meanwhile, the Election Commission has declared it could implement ONOE in 2029, which hypothetically means dissolving numerous State Assemblies. Undeniably, no Government, regardless of its political affiliation, will find common ground with the Centre.
Additionally, changing the tenure of local bodies requires ratification from the States. Even State election commissioners may resist making the Election Commission the ultimate authority on electoral rolls, which could dilute the federal structure and contradict the very essence of a ‘Union’ of States.
Some critics argue that simultaneous elections are inadvisable, suggesting that they may be driven by political motives. Historically, when concurrent elections have occurred, voters tend to favor the same Party, creating potential confusion as poll issues at the Central and State levels often diverge. A Party may warrant support at the national level for its policies and performance, while simultaneously deserving reproach and loss at the State level for different governance outcomes.
Furthermore, a fixed term for Lok Sabha and State Legislatures challenges the foundational tenets of Parliamentary democracy. If a Government enjoying the electorate’s mandate were to be removed, it could remain in power or be succeeded by a Government lacking popular support. What becomes of a Government that fails to finish its term?
Effectively, a Government that does not have the confidence of the House could be imposed on the populace, stripping citizens of their agency in the matter, evoking a sense of de facto dictatorship or monarchical chaos—leading to unrepresentative governance.
To mitigate this, the Election Commission proposes that a no-confidence motion against a Government should be linked to a confidence motion for another Government, with both motions voted on simultaneously, similarly in State Assemblies.
There are compelling arguments on both sides: Development versus accountability? Electoral funding versus political choice? Governance versus electoral fairness? Given the immense significance that elections hold in the fabric of our democracy, the stakes couldn’t be higher.
Should ONOE pass through Parliament, India would join a select group of three nations—South Africa, Sweden, and Belgium. However, its success hinges on managing challenges and the magnitude of implementation. In Sweden, elections for county and municipal councils occur alongside general elections every four years. The same happens in South Africa, where concurrent polls are conducted every five years.
Belgium’s Federal Parliament elections also take place every five years, coinciding with the European Parliament elections. Similar systems exist in Spain, Hungary, Poland, Slovenia, Albania, Israel, Lesotho, the Philippines, Costa Rica, Bolivia, Guatemala, and Indonesia. The U.S. model offers a different approach where the President and State Governors are directly elected for fixed four-year terms, allowing them to select their own teams.
Clearly, it is time for the winds of change to address India’s Perpetual Election Syndrome. As elections form the cornerstone of our democracy, avoiding duplication of polls is paramount. With States caught in a perpetual election cycle every year, managing the Government has become akin to running with the rabbit and hunting with the hound. India’s democracy should not devolve into fractious disputes among Parties. Modi’s ONOE has the potential to ‘cleanse’ India’s destructive PES! — INFA
(Copyright India News & Feature Alliance)
New Delhi
24 February 2025
The post Enough of pes onoe, anyone? appeared first on Daily Excelsior.
