The "One Nation, One Election" plan aims to streamline India's electoral process, but its implications for democracy and federalism are hotly debated.
**India's 'One Nation, One Election' Initiative: A Comprehensive Overview**
**India's 'One Nation, One Election' Initiative: A Comprehensive Overview**
India proposes a synchronized electoral system to boost governance and reduce costs, but faces significant challenges and opposition.
As the world’s largest democracy with nearly a billion eligible voters, India is frequently engaged in elections across its 28 states and eight union territories. Prime Minister Narendra Modi's Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has pushed for the "One Nation, One Election" initiative, which seeks to synchronize state and federal elections every five years, a proposal that has sparked significant discussion in parliament following a recent bill introduction by the law minister.
Proponents of this system argue that aligning election cycles will not only cut campaign costs but also ease the logistical burdens on administrative resources, providing a more streamlined governance process. Former President Ram Nath Kovind, who previously chaired a committee advocating for simultaneous elections, referred to it as a transformative strategy that could potentially enhance India's GDP by up to 1.5%.
In contrast, critics suggest that this proposal poses risks to India's federal structure, emphasizing concerns about centralizing political power and diminishing state autonomy. Currently, the Indian electoral process involves separate elections for various legislative bodies, including general and state assemblies, as well as local councils, which can lead to political volatility and increased expenses.
Historical context shows that simultaneous elections were the standard in India until changes in the political landscape in the late 1960s led to staggered polls. Various recommendations for reviving this system have been debated over decades, including significant proposals from the Election Commission and Niti Aayog.
Support for simultaneous elections is largely grounded in financial considerations. India’s general elections in 2019 were reported to cost over 600 billion rupees ($7.07 billion), making them the most expensive in the world. However, apprehensions persist regarding the financial sustainability of this model, particularly concerning the substantial investments required for electronic voting infrastructure.
The implementation of this proposal is contingent upon constitutional amendments that necessitate agreement from at least half of the state assemblies, which presents a considerable hurdle given the ruling alliance's lack of a two-thirds majority in parliament. Despite recent cabinet approvals and the introduction of related bills, achieving consensus across the political spectrum remains challenging.
The Kovind committee's outreach revealed that out of 47 responding political parties, a majority were in favor of the initiative, primarily those aligned with the BJP. Proponents argue that frequent elections historically distract from substantial governance, while opposition parties, particularly the Congress, have termed the approach as undemocratic, fearing it will disadvantage regional parties.
As India considers this major electoral reform, the balance between operational efficiency and the preservation of democratic principles remains a critical point of contention within the nation.
