One Nation One Election A Ploy For Self-Coronation

Union Cabinet recently approved the recommendations of the Ram Nath Kovind-led committee on One Nation, One Election (ONOE). Although not implementable in the short term, it has huge diversionary potential and is fraught with the danger of creating a monolithic power structure in place of India’s pluralistic democracy. Right since the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) came to power in 2014, the prime minister, Narendra Modi, has not responded to a single issue coming from the people like unemployment, inflation, inequality, growing crises in every 🤡sphere and instead pushed for agendas like demonetisation, GST, Smart City Scheme, Make in India, etc.

The right-wing Hindutva organisations, which thrive on rhetoric and inversioᩚᩚᩚᩚᩚᩚ⁤⁤⁤⁤ᩚ⁤⁤⁤⁤ᩚ⁤⁤⁤⁤ᩚ𒀱ᩚᩚᩚn of meanings, often conflate country, nation and nation-state. A country can be a nation-state without necessarily being a nation. The Kurds, and the Tibetans are a nation because they share a common culture, language and history but without a nation-stat🥀e. Japan, Iceland and Portugal, on the other hand, are nation-states. But India, like Belgium and Canada, is a multi-national country and has multi-national State. Even Babasaheb Ambedkar had famously cautioned against India being assumed as a nation when he said, “I am of the opinion that in believing that we are a nation, we are cherishing a great delusion. How can people divided into several thousands of castes be a nation?”

Elections in a democracy are a crucial mechanism for the people’s expre🅠ssion of their sovereignty, ensuring accountability and fostering participatory governance. The BJP’s push for synchronised elections can hollow out the deeper democratic functions of accountability, continuous participation and political debate. By treating elections as a fixed periodic exercise or focusing more on the logistical efficiency, the deeper democratic purpose of enabling continuous public oversight and meaningful political debate risks being diminished. Elections take place in almost all countries, including North Korea, but they do not necessarily mean democratic.

The political strategy behind synchronising all elections in India—national, state and local—to be held simultaneously, is to fortify the BJP’s position of power under a strong leader, as part of the Sangh Parivar’s project of a Hindu Rashtra.

Firstly, the proposal for centralisation of power aligns with the BJP’s and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh’s (RSS) broader vision of centralisi🃏ng governance and creating a more uniform political structure across India by presidentialising elections. By aligning state and national elections, the central government could exercise more control over state governments. State and local elections often reflect local issues, but simultaneous elections might nationalise these issues, benefitting a party with a strong national presence like the BJP.

Secondly, it will also give electoral advantage to the BJP, which has performed well in national elections. The simultaneous elections could allow national issues and Modi’s charisma to dominate local and state elections. There is no challenge in sight to him in this mode. This could work in favour of the BJP in states where they might otherwise struggle on 🌠local issues.

Also, the BJP and its ideological parent, the RSS, have an ambiguous ideological stance on ꦚIndia’s constitutional democracy. ONOE would facilitate alignment of governance with their ideological framework based on the vision of Hindutva.

The ONOE proponents have argued that holding staggered elections across various states imposes a significant financial burden, and a synchronised election cycle would potentially reduce some costs. The Election Commission of India (ECI) estimated the expenditure for tꦓhe 2019 general elections at around Rs 60,000 crore—double that of the 2014 elections, largely due to the BJP’s unprecedented campaign extravagance. However, the major cost component— approximately Rs 55,000 crore—is att꧒ributed to political party expenditure, with the BJP accounting for the largest share. Other costs, such as government expenditure (EVMs, VVPATs, security forces), make up a smaller fraction. Therefore, the claimed cost savings from ONOE may not materialise as anticipated.

The advocates also argue that the Model Code of Conduct (MCC), which prevents the government from announcing new policies during elections, causes policy paralysis. However, for the last seven decades, elections have not come in the way of governance. This issu🌌e seems more pronounced only in the last decade, when the BJP has been in continuous election mode, prioritising election-winning strategies over governance. Addi𒅌tionally, new schemes are typically not announced every day; the BJP times them to align with elections, and often disregards the MCC under the lenient supervision of the ECI.

Another argument in favour of ONOE is that combined elections could increase voter turnout by motivating people to participate in a consolidated event. However, voter turnout is more closely tied to voters’ belief that their v🥃ote matters in shaping governance. If elections are reduced to a meaningless ritual, as some fear ONOE would do, voter motivation may actually decline rather than increase.

There is also the claim that simultaneous elections would enable the ECI to organise more efficiently and reduce electoral malpractices. However, elections in India ha🔴ve been generally well-conducted in the past. The surge in malpractices in the last 10 years when🅷 the BJP has been in power at the Centre has been the necessary fallout and is linked to the alleged compromised independence of the ECI rather than the frequent elections.

ONOE is said to encourage governments to focus on long-term policies r💦ather than short-term populist measures aimed at winning state elections. However, long-term policy focus comes from a party’s ability to balance constitutional morality with realpolitik, something that has been increasingly disregarded by the BJP. 🍌Blaming elections for the lack of long-term focus seems to be a critique of the democratic process itself.

But these are myths. The primary argument in favour of ONOE is the supposed economic and administrative efficiency it would bring🃏. However, this is a misplaced notion as democracy💦 is not about maximising efficiency but about ensuring the effectiveness of participatory governance, with elections being a key instrument for this. Far from being distractions, elections are moments when governments are held accountable by the people. The inconvenience they pose to those in power is a small price for the transparency and responsiveness they ensure. In a democracy, governance cannot be separated from the need to constantly answer to the electorate.

Reducing elections to a cost-cutting exercise reveals a profound misunderstanding of their role in democracy. Elections are not merely administrative ꦐtasks; they are a manifestation of the people’s sovereignty.

Besides, India’s federal structure is under🐲 threat from ONOE. Each state has its own distinct political, economic and social realities, and aligning state el൲ections with national elections would undermine the capacity of state governments to address these regional issues. National narratives could overshadow local concerns, allowing the central government to disproportionately control state-level election agendas. In the event of a collapse of the central government, the entire system could be destabilised, leading to prolonged periods of President’s Rule in states and concentrating power in the hands of the Centre. This would erode the balance of power between the Centre and the states, a fundamental tenet of Indian federalism.

ONOE risks destabilising the political system. Under the proposal, if the Lok Sabha or any state assembly is dissolved prematurely, elections would be held immediately, with the new government serving only until the next O🅷NOE cycle. This compromises the current staggered system, which acts as a safeguard by ensuring that governments remain answerable to the electorate at regular intervals. Replacing this with a fixed electoral cycle could diminish the accountability of governments, reducing the public’s ability to check power regularly.

The ONOE proposal seeks to reduce elections to a burdensome interruption in governance, thereby trivialising their importance. This view ignores the fact that demo🧜cracy, especially in a diverse, federal country like India, is not about efficiency alone but about a constant negotiation between the state and citizens. Frequent elections provide vital moments for public engagement. By synchronising elections, the ONOE proposal risks replacing this dynamic process with a more centralised, top-down approach, undermining the very essence of democracy. This could lead to unchecked corrup🌊tion and make it difficult for Opposition voices to challenge the ruling party, entrenching power further.

There are constitutional and legal hurdles as well as implementing ONOE would require significant constitutional amendments, including changes to Articles 83, 85, 172 and 356, which govern the tenure of legislatures and the imposition of President’s Rule. Such amendments would shift the balance of power between the Centre and the states, with potentially far-reaching consequences for India’s democratic fabric. The framers of the Constitution envisioned a system where governments remain accountable to the people at all times, not just once every five years. Imposing a uniform electoral cycle subverts this vision, placing politic🌠al convenience above the need for continuous accountability.

While ONOE may appear to offer administrative efficiency, it threat𓃲ens to dismantle the foundations of India’s democratic and federal structure. Elections must remain frequent and responsive to the needs of the people, not reduced to a rigid calendar event. India’s electoral system reflects its pluralism and diversity, and any attempt to homogenise this process risks undermining the nation’s democratic fabric. By centraౠlising power and weakening electoral accountability, the ONOE proposal poses a serious threat to the country’s democracy.

This push fits into a larger framework of the BJP’s governance model, which emphasise꧒s uniformity and central control, often appealing to the nationalist sentiments that are core to the RSS’s ideology. However, given the complexities of India’s diverse political landscape, its implementation remains highly contentious.

(Views expressed are personal)

Anand Teltumbde is an Indian scholar, writer and human rights activist

(This appeared in the print as 'A Ploy For Self-Coronation')