One Nation, One Election
INTRODUCTION
India, the world’s largest democracy with over 900 million voters, conducts elections for Lok Sabha, Rajya Sabha, State assemblies, and local bodies—basically, there’s always some election happening somewhere. The Constitution provides the federal structure and created the Election Commission of India, our “political umpire,” to ensure free and fair polls. The first elections in 1951–52 began the five-year cycle, but since state and national polls rarely align, India ends up in continuous campaign mode (Politicians practically live on stages.) This results in massive costs, lakhs of staff, and security forces who now know village routes better than Google Maps. The Model Code of Conduct ensures fairness but often stalls welfare projects midway—like roads waiting for “election results.”. Reforms like public funding have been suggested, while the hot debate of “One Nation, One Election” divides opinion: supporters see efficiency and savings, critics fear it could weaken federalism and regional voices.
Understanding the Concept “One Nation, One Election’’
The idea proposes holding Lok Sabha and State Assembly elections together every five years, excluding local body and by-elections. It requires a constitutional amendment ratified by at least 50% of states. This is not entirely new—India followed the system between 1952 and 1967, before disruptions broke the cycle. The proposal, strongly supported by Prime Minister Modi, has been studied in detail by the Law Commission (1999), NITI Aayog, and the 79th Parliamentary Standing Committee.
Simultaneous elections could save significant time and cost, bring greater policy stability and continuity, and reduce voter fatigue. They may also encourage higher voter participation and allow governments to focus more on long-term development goals instead of being stuck in constant election mode.
Challenges and Concerns
One big drawback of simultaneous elections is that it might make India look like it’s running from “Delhi HQ” only—regional voices could get submerged like background music at a wedding. If that happens, local issues like water supply or why the streetlight never works, might never reach the stage. Public participation may dip because people could feel, “Vote toh ek hi baar hai, baaki 5 saal Netflix hi sahi.” And then comes the money part—massive election funding can turn into a mystery thriller with “unknown donors” and “black money villains”. Strict rules are like traffic police here—if enforced properly, they can stop the “donation without receipt” parade. To make ONOE work, India needs balance, planning, and consense, otherwise we’ll end up with “One Nation, One Election, One Big Confusion!
Different committees and institutions have examined the idea of One Nation, One Election. The Law Commission (1990) first suggested simultaneous Lok Sabha and State polls to cut costs and waste, while its 2015 report supported the idea but flagged legal hurdles, recommending a two-stage election cycle and amendments to key Articles (83, 85, 172, 174). The NITI Aayog (2017) proposed a phased rollout starting with some states, backed by technology like EVMs and VVPATs. Similarly, the Parliamentary Committee on Law and Justice (2015) endorsed ONOE for cost savings and efficiency but emphasised political consensus and strengthening the Election Commission. The Election Commission of India itself confirmed administrative feasibility, recommending large-scale EVM use and stressing constitutional clarity on fixing legislative terms.
Implications and Challenges
Enforcing “One Nation, One Election” would require key constitutional amendments to align the terms of the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies. Along with this come big challenges—overcoming legal hurdles, ironing out administrative issues, and managing 900 million+ voters without chaos. Just like a grand wedding, everything has to run in sync, or the plan falls apart.
Success also depends on political consensus, a stronger Election Commission, and the smart use of technology like EVMs and VVPATs. If these hurdles are managed well, ONOE could save time, reduce costs, and make India’s electoral process far more efficient—turning our democracy from “always in campaign mode” into one that can focus more on governance.
Public Opinion and Stakeholder
Public and stakeholder opinion on One Nation, One Election is sharply divided. The BJP government strongly supports the idea, projecting it as a way to reduce costs, bring stability, and allow governments to focus on development. In contrast, opposition parties fear it may centralise power, weaken federalism, and overshadow regional voices. Institutions like the Election Commission, Law Commission, and NITI Aayog have acknowledged its potential but also flagged serious constitutional, legal, and logistical hurdles. Among the public, young and urban voters show more support, viewing it as a step toward efficiency, while rural communities and civil society groups remain sceptical, concerned about ballot confusion, reduced accountability, and neglect of local issues. Overall, the proposal evokes mixed reactions, balancing hopes of reform with fears of democratic dilution.
Implementing One Nation, One Election (ONOE) requires a legally sound, politically acceptable, and inclusive framework. Given India’s federal structure and diverse electoral system, the shift must be gradual and constitutionally permissible. Expert bodies like the Election Commission, Law Commission, and NITI Aayog have already suggested phased strategies to make this transition feasible.
Constitutional and Statutory Amendments. The first requirement for ONOE is changing the Constitution. Articles 83, 85, 172, and 174 must be modified so that Lok Sabha and State Assemblies end at the same time. The Representation of the People Act, 1951, will also need changes to manage mid-term polls. It’s like giving the Constitution a software update—bigger than the ones our phones get.!
NITI Aayog in 2017 suggested a phased synchronisation. In the first step, some states would be aligned with the Lok Sabha elections. In the next cycle, the remaining states would join in. Think of it like watching a Netflix series—don’t binge everything in one night, take it season by season.
To ensure stability, India may adopt the German-style constructive vote of no confidence, where a government can fall only if a new one is ready at the same time. It’s like making sure the new chair is already in place before breaking the old one—otherwise, everyone will fall flat.!
For infrastructure, the Election Commission would need double EVMs and VVPATs, more security staff, better digital systems, and trained manpower. At this rate, we’ll have more EVMs like motor vehicle on roads.!
The toughest part is the political and federal consensus. States worry about losing their independence, and political parties rarely agree. It’s like trying to decide dinner on a family WhatsApp group—after 200 messages, no one is happy.
Conclusion
ONOE could save costs, reduce voter fatigue, and improve governance. But without careful planning, it may weaken federalism and local voices. If done right, it’s “Ek Nation, Ek Election, aur ek hi baar mein khatam tamasha.