Note4Students

From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :

Prelims level: Election- Constitutional provisions

Mains level: One nation, one election plan, advantages and concerns and challenges and federalism

What’s the news?

The government forms a committee to explore the possibility of One Nation, One Election.

Central idea

On September 1st, the Central government established a committee chaired by former President Ram Nath Kovind to assess the viability of the ‘one nation, one election’ (ONOE) proposal. This concept revolves around synchronizing the timing of Lok Sabha and State Assembly elections across all states to reduce the frequency of electoral processes across the country.

Concept: The ONOE plan aims to synchronize the timing of the Lok Sabha and State Assembly elections across all states in India to reduce the frequency of election cycles nationwide.
Historical Context:
- After the enforcement of the Constitution on January 26, 1950, the first-ever general elections for both the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies occurred simultaneously in 1951-1952.
- This practice continued for the following three Lok Sabha elections until 1967, streamlining the election process.
Disruption:
- In 1959, the cycle was disrupted as the Central government invoked Article 356 of the Constitution, leading to the dismissal of the Kerala government, due to a perceived failure of constitutional machinery.
- Subsequent to 1960, defections and counter-defections among political parties led to the dissolution of several State Legislative Assemblies.
- This fragmentation resulted in separate election cycles for the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies.
Current Scenario: Presently, only specific States such as Arunachal Pradesh, Sikkim, Andhra Pradesh, and Odisha conduct their assembly polls concurrently with the Lok Sabha elections.

Law Commission of India (LCI) Report – 2018:
The LCI, led by Justice B. S. Chauhan, issued a draft report in August 2018 that scrutinized simultaneous elections.
The report acknowledged the constitutional and legal complexities surrounding this proposal.
It emphasized that the current constitutional framework necessitates amendments for the plan to be realized.
The LCI also recommended seeking approval from at least 50% of the States for such an overhaul.
Despite feasibility challenges, the report recognized potential benefits, including cost savings, reduced administrative burden, timely policy execution, and focused governance.
Historical Context – LCI Report 1999:
Notably, the LCI, headed by Justice B. P. Jeevan Reddy, supported the concept of simultaneous elections as early as 1999.
This historical context underscores that the idea has been debated over time.
Balancing Perspectives:
The reports and perspectives reveal a dualistic landscape: ONOE offers advantages like efficient governance and reduced election strain, but it’s hampered by practical and constitutional complexities.
In assessing ONOE’s viability, the focus is on a well-rounded understanding that considers both the potential benefits and the intricate challenges.

Feasibility and Constitutional Implications:
- The Constitution outlines fixed tenures (Article 83(2) and 172) for the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies, raising doubts about the feasibility of simultaneous elections.
- The possibility of mid-term government collapse necessitates a clear mechanism for holding fresh elections or imposing the President’s rule.
Federalism and Conceptual Incompatibility:
- ONOE seems to conflict with the federal structure, contradicting the idea of India as a Union of States (Article 1).
- Altering this balance might affect the autonomy and authority of state governments.
Frequency, Accountability, and Blending of Issues:
- Frequent elections allow citizens to address national and state issues separately, enhancing accountability.
- ONOE’s merging of issues might dilute accountability mechanisms and lead to a less-focused governance approach.
Cost Misconceptions:
- While the Central government highlights the substantial costs of frequent elections, critics argue that the actual expenses are not as massive.
- The analysis questions whether the Election Commission’s expenditure of ₹8,000 crore over five years, amounting to ₹1,500 crore annually or ₹27 per voter per year, is a significant expense for maintaining India’s democratic pride.

Comprehensive Constitutional Review:
- Engage legal experts to meticulously assess necessary constitutional amendments for ONOE.
- Develop a contingency plan to handle midterm government collapses, ensuring stability and smooth transitions.
Balancing Federalism and Centralization:
- Initiate dialogues with state governments to understand and address their concerns about centralization.
- Craft a balanced framework that respects both federal principles and national electoral efficiency.
Hybrid Accountability Model:
- Explore a hybrid approach that retains staggered elections for select states while implementing ONOE for others.
- Maintain distinct accountability mechanisms for national and state issues, promoting effective governance.
Transparent Cost-Benefit Analysis:
- Conduct an independent and transparent assessment of the costs and savings associated with ONOE.
- Present factual data to address misconceptions and inform stakeholders about the financial implications.
Pilots and Gradual Implementation:
- Begin ONOE implementation through pilot projects in a limited number of states.
- Assess challenges, gather insights, and refine the approach before nationwide adoption.

The proposal for one nation, one election envisions synchronizing Lok Sabha and State Assembly elections to curtail the frequency of polls. The Indian democracy’s complex dynamics and diverse contexts warrant a comprehensive assessment before implementing such a transformative change.