The government's move to implement ‘One Nation, One Election’ (ONOE) has ignited widespread debate. On one hand, it offers tangible benefits, such as removing the possibility of a governance paralysis and reducing election costs. On the other hand, the opposition and sections of civil society say it goes against the spirit of federalism.

Aimed at synchronizing elections across the country, the proposal has been set in motion with the introduction of two key bills in the Lok Sabha during the Winter Session of 2024 — the Constitution (129th Amendment) Bill and the Union Territories Laws (Amendment) Bill. These bills have been referred to a joint parliamentary committee (JPC) for review.

Geetanjali Minhas of Governance Now spoke with a panel of experts on the pros and cons of simultaneous elections and challenges in its implementation.

The video of the discussion can be accessed here: https://youtu.be/_VJnd_FbYqg

Here are the edited excerpts from the discussion:
 
PDT Achary, Former Secretary General, Lok Sabha:

Election expenditure: who pays?
It is true that elections in India involve enormous expenditure. But there are two critical points. First, the government directly funds the Election Commission's logistics and operations. In 2023-24 the budget allocated for election expenses was around Rs 466 crore. But this is just a portion of the overall cost. State governments incur additional expenses related to logistics, such as arranging venues, hiring police and ensuring security. Collectively, these costs run into thousands of crores. More significantly in the 2024 elections, it is estimated that political parties spent approximately Rs 1.35 lakh crore, primarily funded by corporate donations. The government wants to save this money for infrastructure development. However, despite simultaneous elections from 1951 to 1967, there is no evidence that political parties used these funds for building schools, roads or other critical infrastructure.

Model Code of Conduct: a policy hindrance?
In case of the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) also, there is no evidence that it prevents the government from making important policy decisions. The government has ample time to plan and implement policies throughout the term; why it has to choose this time just before the elections to make MCC as a convenient scapegoat and for political gains?

The Constitutional dilemma: federalism at stake
India's federal structure envisions independent, autonomous state legislatures with fixed tenures. These proposed amendments would tie the tenure of state assemblies to that of the Lok Sabha, potentially destabilizing the autonomy of state governments. Such changes violate the basic structure of India's Constitution, particularly the federal system. With most opposition parties opposing the bill, the government lacks the necessary votes to pass the Constitutional amendment, particularly as it requires a special majority. Political resistance to this proposal further complicates its passage.

The need for periodic elections: ensuring accountability
Periodic elections ensure the government's accountability to the public. If elections were held only once every five years, politicians could grow complacent, forgetting their obligations to the public. Periodic elections, whether for the Lok Sabha or state assemblies, force elected representatives to remain engaged with the people, ensuring a closer relationship between the electorate and their leaders. Moreover, periodic elections allow governments to gauge public sentiment more accurately. Governments can monitor how their policies are being received and make adjustments accordingly.

Tackling black money in elections
State-funded elections, where the government allocates funds to political parties based on their electoral performance could be an effective solution to the pervasive problem of black money in Indian politics.

SY Quraishi, Former Chief Election Commissioner of India:

Frequent elections and simultaneous polls: a deep dive
While the idea of conducting elections once every five years may seem appealing to some, this convenience should not be the driving force behind policy decisions. For the Election Commission, it would certainly be easier to conduct elections just once every five years, but should that be the only consideration?

Concerns over MCC and policy implications
MCC restrictions particularly on announcing new schemes are often exaggerated. Many schemes seem to surface just before elections, even when the government had the entire term to introduce them. Politicians should already be ready to implement their policies well in advance. The MCC is not the roadblock some make it out to be. It only prevents new financial incentives or major projects from being announced for a short period close to election dates, but everything else continues without issue.

Simultaneous elections: a diluted proposal?
The proposal could potentially create more issues than it would resolve. A national debate on the subject was initiated over a decade ago, but after years of discussion and no consensus, the idea should have been shelved. The high-level committee chaired by former president Ram Nath Kovind has acknowledged support from Hindi and English speaking belt, leaving out other regions of India. This regional imbalance undermines the claim that the proposal has widespread national support.

Logistics, cost and electoral machines
The Election Commission has estimated that it would require three times as many electronic voting machines (EVMs) and voter verifiable paper audit trail (VVPAT) machines, with the cost running into hundreds of crores, requiring ramping up infrastructure. But the idea is to save costs.

Additionally the machinery used in the 2013 elections is now outdated, with no clear plans for modernizing or replacing it. The very idea of recycling EVMs across different elections is no longer feasible.

A concern for federalism and constitutional integrity
Simultaneous elections could undermine the autonomy of state legislatures, as their tenure would be tied to the Lok Sabha’s schedule. Federalism is the bedrock of our constitution. This proposal is a clear violation of that principle. A central authority dictating terms for state elections is unconstitutional and could destabilize the functioning of state governments.
There are contradictions within the proposal, such as the provision for mid-term elections. If the Lok Sabha were to dissolve early, the states could find themselves forced into holding elections that would last for only a few months, further complicating the issue. Again, the idea is to save costs. In essence, such a shift will lead to an imbalance of the values of federalism, governance and democratic accountability.

Addressing electoral funding and black money
There has been a suggestion to create a National Election Fund with state-funded elections where donations would be made transparently. Political parties would receive funds based on their electoral performance, ensuring fairness and reducing the influence of unaccountable corporate money.

Rajat Sethi, Political Commentator, President, Aravali Forum:

Simultaneous elections: a call for strategic political reforms
What is needed is a fundamental reevaluation of India’s electoral system, particularly the frequent elections that have dominated the political landscape. We need to study the debates from the Constituent Assembly, through which India adopted a model of governance that struck a balance between federal and unitary principles. This framework envisioned elected governments with a fixed five-year term, allowing them the necessary space to implement long-term policies free from constant election-related pressures.

Over time, the frequent elections—at times as often as every few months—have created an environment where political parties, both in power and opposition, are diverted from governance to electioneering. This hampers the ability of elected governments to focus on their core agendas and policies. Politicians are forced to spend months strategizing for the next election, derailing progress. Constant political turbulence undermines long-term policymaking, which requires stability and focus.

Simultaneous elections: a bipartisan approach?
Simultaneous elections at the national and state levels could provide the much-needed respite from the cycle of continuous electioneering. Such a shift would not mark the beginning of a ‘Democracy 2.0’ but rather a return to the system envisioned by India’s constitution—where elections were spaced out every five years, ensuring greater stability and governance continuity.

The 2024 Maharashtra elections have shown that voters are discerning, where they empowered BJP in the state despite Congress winning in the Nanded Lok Sabha seat. Voters know when to empower one party at the state level and another at the national level.

Ensuring accountability and strong governance
Politicians must keep in touch with their constituencies, but they must also be given the time to focus on long-term policies. Frequent elections prevent politicians from making tough policy decisions, fearing the backlash from upcoming polls.

China can expedite reforms due to fewer electoral cycles. India’s democracy should also aim for consistent growth, and a five-year mandate that allows leaders to take necessary but tough decisions.

Tackling electoral costs and black money
The cost of simultaneous elections would likely be equal to or less than the current situation. The key is not to blame politicians alone but to recognize that the problem of black money is a societal issue. Businesses and individuals also need to stop engaging in cash transactions. Eliminating cash dealings would contribute to curbing the use of black money in politics.

Long-term vision for India’s growth
For sustained growth, India needs a growth trajectory of at least 8% annually. This requires policymakers to be insulated from the pressures of frequent elections and short-term political goals. India needs to remove the constant distractions of electioneering and prioritize long-term, painful reforms.