The Aakhya Weekly #64 | A single election for India?
In Focus: ‘One Nation, One Election’: A Potential Future of India?
By Aradhana Gupta and Rishabh Gupta, with inputs from Vrinda Tulsian
The Indian Government has once again stirred the turbulent waters of the nation's political landscape, unleashing ripples through its proclamation of an exploratory committee tasked with delving into the implementation of 'One Nation, One Election.' (ONOE). The concept of ONOE featured in the BJP's political manifesto, and numerous eminent leaders have fervently championed its cause. The abrupt surge in attention surrounding the notion can be attributed to the establishment of a novel committee, presided over by former President Ram Nath Kovind. The committee's primary charge is to meticulously examine the practicality and viability of implementing this ambitious initiative.
What is One Nation One Election?
ONOE involves conducting Lok Sabha, State Assembly and local body elections concurrently, albeit not necessarily on the same day, throughout the country. The Prime Minister has advocated for a single voter list for both Lok Sabha and State Assembly elections to streamline the process further. This approach has been practiced in several countries globally, including Sweden, Indonesia, South Africa, Germany, and others.
To garner support and discuss the advantages and disadvantages of this idea, the ruling government convened an All India Political Parties Meet, which saw participation from 19 out of 40 invited parties, each expressing varying opinions. Some parties, such as AIADMK, DMDK, Asom Gana Parishad, the Indian Union Muslim League and the Shiromani Akali Dal, supported the idea with certain conditions. Others, including the Indian National Congress, Trinamool Congress, NCP, CPI and AIMIM opposed it as impractical.
Several prominent leaders have supported this idea and many expert committees have examined this matter in detail in the past. These include the Law Commission of India’s ‘170th report on Reform of Electoral Laws (1999)’, Parliamentary Standing Committee on Law & Justice’s ‘79th report (Dec 2015)’, NITI Aayog’s ‘Analysis of Simultaneous Elections by Bibek Debroy and Kishore Desai – (Nov 2017)’ and Law Commission of India’s Draft report (Aug 2018).
From the Archives
In the annals of Indian democracy, the inaugural instance of simultaneous elections to both the Lok Sabha and State Legislative assemblies transpired during the years 1951-52. This convergence continued in subsequent years, casting its electoral spell in 1957, 1962, and 1967. This electoral symphony encountered its first discordant note in the subsequent years, however, specifically in the tumultuous period of 1968-1969, marked by the untimely dissolution of state assemblies in Bihar, Punjab, and Uttar Pradesh.
A more significant deviation from this synchrony occurred in 1970, when the Lok Sabha itself faced a premature dissolution, necessitating fresh elections in 1971, originally slated for 1972. The extension of the Fifth Lok Sabha's term until 1977, thereafter, was sanctioned under the aegis of Article 352. In the ensuing four and a half decades, the electoral landscape has witnessed a schism, with separate elections held for the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies.
What reasons does the government have?
The fervent advocacy for "One Nation, One Election" (ONOE) in India pivots upon the imperative of streamlining governance while safeguarding policy continuity. The relentless cadence of elections, unfolding at intervals of approximately nine months across diverse regions of the nation, monopolizes the collective consciousness. Leaders spanning the hierarchy of governance, ranging from the Prime Minister to grassroots representatives, find themselves deeply entrenched in these electoral duels, each action driven by an unrelenting apprehension of electoral setbacks. This heightened political entanglement invariably creates a de facto state of administrative paralysis, casting a long, foreboding shadow over India's economic prospects. Furthermore, the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) swiftly comes into force upon the Election Commission's declaration of elections, effectively impeding the initiation of novel policy decisions. Consequently, crucial policy determinations, both at the central echelons and the grassroots, contend with pronounced delays. The relentless focus on election-related duties ensnares government officials and the political leadership, relegating routine administration to the sidelines, thus exacerbating the predicament.
The regularity of elections in India constitutes a fertile breeding ground for political corruption, while adding to the onerous burden of political fundraising. ONOE emerges as a beacon of promise, poised to substantially ameliorate the financial outlay associated with elections while alleviating the incessant demands on the public and corporate entities for recurring donations. Furthermore, the prospect of simultaneous elections holds the potential for substantial fiscal prudence within the Election Commission itself, albeit mandating an initial investment in requisite infrastructure. The adoption of a unified electoral roll across all elections promises to yield noteworthy economies of scale in time and money that are conventionally expended on the laborious task of updating these registers, promising enhanced convenience for citizens.
Moreover, the prospect of synchronized elections offers the prospect of a substantial reduction in the formidable deployment of security personnel, tasked with preserving tranquility during electoral events, thereby mitigating costs and averting the diversion of law enforcement assets from their critical functions. In addition to these advantages, the implementation of fixed election intervals may serve as a robust deterrent against the unscrupulous practice of elected representatives engaging in horse-trading, rendering it more arduous for them to opportunistically switch parties or form alliances for personal gain.
Is all that glitters gold?
It is entirely reasonable to inquire why, despite the myriad advantages attributed to the concept of 'One Nation One Election' (ONOE), it faces scrutiny and skepticism. The proposition of simultaneous elections indeed presents formidable challenges. ONOE particularly poses a conundrum for regional parties. A study conducted by the IDFC Institute in 2015 illuminated a compelling statistic—when Lok Sabha and Assembly elections are held simultaneously, there is a substantial 77% likelihood that the winning political party or alliance will secure victory in both contests within a given state. Conversely, if these elections are staggered within a six-month interval, the percentage drops to 61%, indicating a greater divergence in voter choices. Moreover, aligning state assembly elections with Lok Sabha elections intertwines national and regional issues, invariably bestowing national parties with a conspicuous advantage in the electoral arena.
The first and the foremost argument against ONOE is its implication on the provisions of the constitution. There are multiple legal conundrums presented by provisions such as Article 83, Article 172, Article 356, Article 83(2) and Article 172(1), which talk about election procedures and the power vested with the president and governors. To implement "One Nation One Election", revisions shall be necessary to various articles of the Constitution. To effectuate these amendments, a two-thirds majority consensus within both houses of Parliament must be secured.
Routine elections serve as a check on political parties, subjecting them to continuous scrutiny and obliging them to substantiate their performance to solicit votes in forthcoming elections. In India, political parties are never off the hook, acutely aware that any negative publicity regarding their governance could translate into electoral setbacks. This system safeguards accountability.
However, the most formidable challenge to implementing ONOE resides in the disparate tenures of various state governments. Some would be compelled to truncate their mandates, while others must extend theirs to facilitate ONOE. Hypothetically, if simultaneous elections were scheduled for 2024, the Aam Aadmi Party-led governments in Delhi and Punjab would need to abbreviate their terms, while administrations in Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh would necessitate extensions. Such a setup is bound to encounter resistance from multiple political quarters.
Another facet often overlooked pertains to the potential emergence of hung assemblies and coalition realignments. As previously mentioned, the synchronicity of elections was disrupted due to the untimely dissolution of certain state assemblies and subsequent dissolution of the Lok Sabha. Should the Lok Sabha dissolve prematurely before its prescribed tenure, would elections be conducted anew for both the state and central governments? What would be the duration of presidential rule in states if their assemblies are dissolved mid-tenure? Would elections be confined to specific states, and if so, how would their tenures be determined? These inquiries demand thorough consideration by the newly constituted committee.
Numerous prominent opposition leaders, including sitting chief ministers from various states, have vehemently criticized this initiative, perceiving it as a direct affront to the constitutional principles that underpin India's democratic framework.
What next for India?
If our overarching objective is to curtail costs and eliminate superfluous expenditures, ONOE is a fantastic idea. However, if the broader aim is to cultivate robust center-state relationships and foster cooperative federalism within a democratic framework, numerous intricate issues must be meticulously addressed. A mere synchronization of elections, without a comprehensive strategy, would be a futile endeavor. Consequently, any steps taken toward implementing this system should be subjected to thorough deliberation and seek consensus from the majority. While it remains virtually implausible to introduce this system for the 2024 elections, it can be a viable prospect in the near future if suitable accommodations are made for its implementation. Importantly, it is imperative that such measures align harmoniously with the foundational principles enshrined in our Constitution.
Top Stories of the Week
UNCITRAL comes to AALCO
Ms. Anna Joubin-Bret, Secretary of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL), delivered a lecture on its work and the latest developments at the Secretariat of the Asian-African Legal Consultative Organisation (AALCO) yesterday. Aakhya India was honoured to be in attendance.
The lecture focused on the progress achieved by the six working groups of UNCITRAL: (1) Micro, Medium and Small Enterprises; (2) Dispute Resolution; (3) Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) Reform; (4) Electronic Commerce; (5) Insolvency Law; and (6) Negotiable Cargo Documents.
Ms Joubin-Bret discussed developments in each of the above working groups, with emphasis on reform of ISDS, which has been controversial for several years (more on India and ISDS here). She also addressed the need for proliferation of e-commerce and payment systems, with a nod to the G20 New Delhi Leaders' Declaration. Lastly, she referred to the UNCITRAL Colloquium on Climate Change and the Law of International Trade, with emphasis on building the right legal infrastructure and developing standards in emerging areas such as carbon credits.
AALCO, headquartered in New Delhi with 47 member states from Asia and Africa, represents the spirit of the Bandung Conference of 1955 and represent the voices of nations from the Global South in the codification and progressive development of international law.
Agenda announced for Parliament special session
After much speculation on the contents of the five day “special parliamentary session” later this month, the Lok Sabha secretariat has released the agenda for the session.
The session, beginning on September 18, shall begin with a discussion on the Parliament’s 75 year-old journey. Thereafter, four bills shall be discussed over the session.
Some of these are fairly ordinary. For instance, the Lok Sabha may pass amendments to the Advocates Act, 1961. These shall allow various courts to publish a list of ‘touts’. These touts shall be removed from court premises, and may be fined or imprisoned. Both houses may also consider the Post Office Bill, 2023, a bill that shall replace the Indian Post Office Act, 1898.
Two Bills on its roster, however, are significantly more controversial. The first is the Press and Registration of Periodicals Bill, 2023, which was passed by the Rajya Sabha in August. The Bill, which replaces a 156-year old British law, requires the registration of all periodical news publications and journals. This includes online publications. In fact, technically, even newsletters like this one may fall under the Bill’s ambit. Foreign periodicals, in particular, can only be printed in India with Government approval.
The second is the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Bill, 2023. The Bill sets out the procedure for selection of Election Commissioners, including the Chief Election Commissioner. The Supreme Court had previously set out a temporary procedure for such appointments - creating a selection committee comprising of the Prime Minister, the leader of opposition and the Chief Justice of India. Controversially, the Bill replaces the Chief Justice with a cabinet minister nominated by the Prime Minister. This, many fear, may give the incumbent executive considerable control over elections.
A Few Good Reads
Two stories on Indian higher education. Milan Vaishnav decries the limited freedom that Indian universities have to pursue academic excellence. Meanwhile, V Ranganathan makes the case for lesser Government interference in IIMs.
Vivek Katju notes the many implications of changing the name ‘India’ to ‘Bharat’.
Vikram Doraiswami rubbishes the idea that the Chandrayaan-3 was a waste of resources.
Chris Giles maps five ongoing shifts to the global economy.
While those curious about pre-colonial India often look to shastric texts, Anirudh Kanisetti points to another, perhaps more unusual source - the works of medieval Indian pleasure-seekers.
Special report: Coca Cola makes waves
Dholpur, Rajasthan, was once a water-scarce district, but it has transformed into a region with ample water supply. This change is brought about by Coca-Cola India Foundation with Lupin Human Welfare and Research Foundation and the Rajputana Society of Natural History. They created rainwater harvesting structures in the village, which significantly increased water availability. Kamala, a resident of Dholpur, used to travel long distances to fetch water, but now, she enjoys an abundance of water. This change in Dholpur brought about by Coca-Cola India also runs parallel with the positive impact created in over 10 districts with 100 projects, and 10 billion liters of water replenished annually.
Meanwhile, Coca-Cola India and Zepto partnered up for the 'Return and Recycle' initiative, sparking a wave of change. They urged consumers to contribute empty PET bottles, which are turned into valuable materials for industries. This effort not only gathered over 1 ton of plastic waste but also inspired eco-consciousness with the Zepto app's 'Return PET' tab, adopted by 50,000 households. With the support of 10,000 zepto representatives, this initiative has created a nationwide recycling movement that now touches over 200 stores. Coca-Cola India stands firm in its commitment to a waste-free world.