In the Lok Sabha, the bill to implement “One Nation, One Election” received 269 votes in favor and 198 votes against. However, the proposal failed to secure the required two-thirds majority needed for its passage.
The “One Nation, One Election” (ONOE) initiative, aiming to synchronize India’s electoral cycles for the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies, has been a topic of significant debate. On December 17, 2024, the Indian government introduced two bills in the Lok Sabha to facilitate simultaneous elections. However, the proposal faced substantial opposition and failed to secure the required two-thirds majority, with 269 votes in favor and 198 against.
Historical Context
Simultaneous elections were standard practice in India from 1951 to 1967, with both Lok Sabha and State Assembly elections conducted concurrently. This practice was disrupted due to the premature dissolution of certain state assemblies in 1968 and 1969, leading to the current staggered electoral system.
The ONOE Proposal
The ONOE proposal seeks to revert to the earlier system by aligning the election cycles of the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies. Advocates argue that this would reduce the frequency and cost of elections, minimize governance disruptions caused by the Model Code of Conduct, and allow politicians to focus more on governance rather than continuous campaigning.
Recent Developments
In September 2024, the Union Cabinet accepted the recommendations of a high-level committee led by former President Ram Nath Kovind, which advocated for simultaneous elections. Subsequently, on December 12, 2024, the Union Cabinet cleared the ONOE bill for introduction in Parliament during the Winter Session.
On December 17, 2024, Union Law and Justice Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal introduced the Constitution (129th Amendment) Bill in the Lok Sabha amid heated debates. The bill proposed amendments to facilitate simultaneous elections, requiring a two-thirds majority for passage. However, it failed to achieve the necessary support, with 269 votes in favor and 198 against.
Arguments For ONOE
- Cost Efficiency: Frequent elections lead to substantial expenditure from the public exchequer. Simultaneous elections could significantly reduce these costs.
- Administrative Efficiency: Regular elections require extensive deployment of security forces and administrative personnel, diverting them from their primary duties. A unified election schedule could alleviate this strain.
- Policy Continuity: The Model Code of Conduct, enforced during elections, restricts policy decisions and development activities. Simultaneous elections would reduce the frequency of these interruptions, allowing for uninterrupted governance.
Arguments Against ONOE
- Federalism Concerns: Critics argue that simultaneous elections could undermine the federal structure by overshadowing regional issues with national narratives, potentially marginalizing state-specific concerns.
- Logistical Challenges: Conducting elections simultaneously across a vast and diverse country like India poses significant logistical hurdles, including the availability of security personnel and electronic voting machines.
- Political Representation: Opponents fear that national issues might dominate the electoral discourse, disadvantaging regional parties and affecting the representation of local interests.
Constitutional and Legal Implications
Implementing ONOE requires substantial constitutional amendments, including changes to the Representation of the People Act 1951 and the Rules of Procedure of Lok Sabha and State Assemblies. Additionally, such amendments would need ratification by at least 50% of the states, making it a complex legislative process.
Global Comparisons
Several countries conduct simultaneous elections. For instance, Sweden holds elections for all three levels of government simultaneously, while Belgium aligns its parliamentary and provincial elections with the European Union elections. In India’s neighborhood, Nepal conducts simultaneous elections at all three levels of government since adopting its new constitution in 2015.
Future Prospects
Despite the setback in the Lok Sabha, the government has indicated its willingness to engage in wider consultations and possibly refer the legislation to a parliamentary committee for further deliberation. The complexity of the issue suggests that achieving a consensus will require addressing the concerns of various stakeholders, including opposition parties, regional entities, and the general public.
Conclusion
The “One Nation, One Election” proposal represents a significant shift in India’s electoral process, aiming to enhance efficiency and reduce costs. However, it also raises concerns about federalism, logistical feasibility, and political representation. The recent failure to pass the bill in the Lok Sabha underscores the need for broader consensus and careful consideration of the diverse perspectives within India’s democratic framework.