On December 17, 2024, a groundbreaking bill was introduced in the Lok Sabha—an initiative that has ignited both applause and controversy across India. The "One Nation, One Election" (ONOE) bill proposes to radically reshape the country's electoral landscape. The ruling party, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), hails it as a measure that could boost India's GDP by nearly ₹5 lakh crore. In stark contrast, the opposition views it as a potential threat to India's democratic fabric, warning it could steer the nation toward authoritarianism.
In this article, we'll explore what the ONOE bill proposes, how it is expected to function, and the arguments both in favor of and against its implementation. We'll also examine whether the bill can truly deliver its promise of saving money and improving governance.
What Is the One Nation, One Election Bill?
The ONOE bill aims to synchronize elections across the country. This includes elections for the Lok Sabha (Parliament), all State Legislative Assemblies, as well as local body elections for municipal corporations and gram panchayats. Currently, elections in India are held at different times due to varied tenure periods across states and local bodies. As a result, the country is almost perpetually in “election mode.”
This constant electoral cycle has wide-ranging implications—not just political, but administrative and economic as well. The BJP argues that holding elections simultaneously every five years can address these issues effectively.
Governance Disruptions Due to Frequent Elections
One of the major concerns raised by the BJP relates to the disruption of governance caused by frequent elections. Each election cycle invokes the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) , a set of guidelines issued by the Election Commission of India (ECI). According to the ECI , once elections are announced:
- Ministers and authorities cannot announce any financial grants or make promises that could influence voters.
- No foundation stones for new projects can be laid.
- No ad-hoc appointments can be made in government undertakings.
- Promises related to infrastructure, such as roads and drinking water, must be put on hold.
With India being in election mode so frequently, this means that developmental work often comes to a standstill. If every few months the country pauses its governance activities, the overall momentum of development suffers, impacting long-term progress.
The Economic Burden of Frequent Elections
Elections in India are an expensive affair. According to a detailed report by Business Standard, the cost of organizing Lok Sabha elections alone runs into thousands of crores. When state assembly elections, municipal, and panchayat polls are added to the mix, the financial burden becomes enormous.
Additionally, each election necessitates the deployment of security forces, the conversion of schools into polling booths, and the involvement of administrative staff such as teachers and local government officials. This results in significant human resource and logistical costs, which could be minimized through synchronized elections.
Administrative Challenges and Strain on Essential Services
Another serious concern is the strain on the country's administrative machinery. Every time an election is held, essential service providers like the police, teachers, and other local officials are diverted from their duties. Schools are converted into polling stations, and government officers are reassigned to election duty. This disrupts everyday services for citizens and hampers the functioning of state machinery.
Bringing all elections into a unified cycle would reduce the frequency of such disruptions, allowing government services to function more smoothly.
Opposition's Concerns: A Federal and Democratic Challenge
Despite the promises made by ONOE, there is strong resistance from opposition parties and constitutional experts. One of the foremost concerns is that the bill undermines India's federal structure, which allows both the central and state governments to operate independently.
Synchronizing all elections would require dissolving various State Legislative Assemblies—each with its own tenure—and aligning them with Lok Sabha elections. This could mean either imposing the President's Rule or allowing the Centre to take control of state administrations temporarily. Both scenarios pose serious constitutional challenges and are considered undemocratic by many critics.
To implement this synchronization, major amendments would be needed in at least five constitutional articles 83, 85, 172, 174, and 356. Moreover, approval from at least 50% of the states would be mandatory, making the legislative journey complex and politically sensitive.
Risk of Overpowering Regional Voices
India is a mosaic of cultures, languages, and local issues. Critics of ONOE argue that synchronizing elections could overshadow regional voices, as national narratives tend to dominate larger electoral cycles. Studies suggest that when elections are held simultaneously, there's a 77% chance that voters will choose the same party at both state and national levels. This undermines the importance of local governance and the diversity of democratic expression that India currently enjoys.
Accountability Through Frequent Elections
While frequent elections are undoubtedly expensive, they also serve as a mechanism to keep governments accountable. Voters use these opportunities to express dissatisfaction or approval of ruling parties. For instance, although Yogi Adityanath won the Uttar Pradesh state elections in 2022, the BJP saw a significant drop in Lok Sabha seats in the 2024 general elections—from 62 in 2019 to 33. This shift demonstrated voter sentiment mid-term.
If elections are held only once every five years, voters may lose the opportunity to express such dissatisfaction between terms, potentially reducing the responsiveness of governments to public needs.
BJP's Roadmap for Implementation
The BJP government has outlined a two-phase plan for implementing the One Nation, One Election model:
Phase 1: Synchronize the Lok Sabha and State Assembly elections. Voters would cast two votes—one for a Member of Parliament (MP) and another for a Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA)—but both would occur at the same polling booth on the same day.
Phase 2: Extend synchronization to local body elections, including panchayat, municipal, and corporation polls. The ultimate goal is to create a single, unified electoral cycle across all levels of governance.
Conclusion: A Visionary Reform or a Democratic Risk?
The One Nation, One Election bill is one of the most ambitious electoral reforms ever proposed in India. While it offers significant advantages in terms of cost-saving, administrative efficiency, and governance continuity, it also raises profound concerns regarding democratic accountability and federal autonomy.
The success of ONOE will depend on how well it balances the economic and administrative benefits with the need to preserve the democratic essence of a diverse and complex nation like India. As the debate continues, it is imperative that the voices of all stakeholders—state governments, opposition parties, civil society, and the general public—are taken into account before making such a sweeping transformation.