At the ‘Legally Speaking’ event organized by NewsX,
The concept of “One Nation, One Election” has stirred significant debate in political and public discourse. At first glance, it appears to be an attractive proposal—promising uniformity, discipline, and efficiency. It resonates strongly with those who value a sense of order, particularly among urban and educated classes.
However, beneath its appealing facade lies a host of constitutional, practical, and political challenges that make its implementation far more complicated than it seems.
Historical Context
The idea is not entirely new. Between 1952 & 1967, India successfully conducted simultaneous elections for the Lok Sabha and state assemblies. This was a natural outcome of synchronized political timelines. However, the political landscape began to shift as governments in both the states and the center started collapsing due to defections, withdrawals of support, and shifts in loyalties. This disruption led to the staggered election cycle we see today.
Constitutional and Practical Concerns
A key issue with “One Nation, One Election” is its constitutionality. To enforce synchronized elections, there would need to be a mechanism to address situations where a government loses its majority mid-term. Proponents suggest a reset button—a law mandating that such a government continue until the next synchronized election date. However, this raises serious questions:
– Democratic Will: How can a minority government, without the numbers to command a majority, be artificially propped up for years? Such a scenario undermines the very essence of democracy, where governments are meant to reflect the will of the people.
– Federalism: India’s federal structure thrives on the autonomy of states. Regional parties, which currently govern a significant portion of India, may view this proposal as an encroachment on their powers. The principle of federalism is integral to the Constitution, and any move that appears to centralize power is bound to face resistance.
Challenges in Implementation
Even if the initial reset to synchronized elections is achieved, the practical challenges are enormous. Political realities are dynamic, with alliances, defections, and electoral outcomes frequently disrupting timelines. For instance, a situation like that of 1967 or the 1990s, where governments fall out of sync due to shifting loyalties, would require repeated legal interventions. Enforcing such resets each time could lead to political instability and logistical chaos.
Additionally, the recent report on “One Nation, One Election” is criticized for being vague and riddled with generalizations. It does not adequately address the practicalities of ensuring alignment or the financial and administrative implications of conducting elections across such a vast and diverse nation simultaneously.
Federalism at Risk
The dominance of regional parties in contemporary India adds another layer of complexity. Today, regional parties govern more states than either of the national parties—Congress or BJP. These parties have different priorities and cater to local issues that often diverge from national interests. Forcing a uniform election timeline could marginalize their role and dilute the essence of India’s federal structure.
Conclusion
While “One Nation, One Election” is an idea that holds surface-level appeal, it is riddled with fundamental challenges that make it implausible and potentially detrimental to India’s democratic ethos. It raises significant questions about federalism, democratic representation, and practical execution. Instead of rushing into its implementation, a thorough examination of its implications, backed by widespread consultation and consensus-building, is essential. Only then can a balanced and practical approach be developed—if at all this concept is to be pursued further.
Read More: Challenges To The Rollout Of Women’s Reservation I Legally Speaking
