The concept of \u201cOne Nation, One Election\u201d (ONOE) has roots in India\u2019s electoral history, with simultaneous elections for the Lok Sabha and state assemblies being the norm from 1952 till 1967. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
This system was disrupted by the premature dissolution of several state legislatures in 1968-69 and the early dissolution of the Lok Sabha in 1970, leading to staggered election timelines. Recently, calls for a return to simultaneous elections have resurfaced, sparking intense debate about their feasibility, implications, and impact on Indian democracy. The High-Level Committee on Simultaneous Elections, led by former President Ram Nath Kovind, proposed 15 constitutional amendments to facilitate this transition. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
These include introducing Article 82A to support the ONOE framework and modifying Article 327 to empower Parliament to legislate on the matter. However, critics argue that these changes could centralize electoral authority, sidelining states\u2019 input. While proponents highlight potential efficiency and cost savings, detractors raise concerns about democratic integrity and practical challenges. Supporters of ONOE argue that it can significantly reduce the financial and administrative burden of conducting frequent elections. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
A unified electoral cycle would optimize the use of polling booths, staff, and resources, potentially saving thousands of crore rupees. It could also minimize the repeated imposition of the Model Code of Conduct, which often disrupts governance. Advocates, particularly from the ruling National Democratic Alliance (NDA), contend that ONOE would enable governments to focus on long-term policymaking rather than perpetual campaigning. Historical precedent from 1952 to 1967 is often cited as evidence of its feasibility. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
However, former Chief Election Commissioner S.Y. Quraishi and others have flagged critical issues. One major concern is the exclusion of Panchayat elections, which involve over 30 lakh representatives. Conducting these elections separately undermines the premise of ONOE and risks voter fatigue. The logistical challenges are equally daunting, with the Election Commission estimating the need for 40 lakh additional Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) and Voter Verified Paper Audit Trails (VVPATs). <\/p>\n\n\n\n
This would incur significant financial costs, running into thousands of crores.The stability of governments under ONOE also raises questions. If a state assembly is dissolved prematurely, should the state remain under central rule until the next scheduled election, or should fresh elections be held immediately? Such scenarios could lead to governance vacuums, particularly in politically unstable states. The constitutional process for implementing ONOE requires a majority vote in both Houses of Parliament and ratification by at least half of the states-a challenging proposition given the divergent views of political parties. Critics argue that ONOE risks undermining democratic principles. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Allegations of bias within the Election Commission of India (ECI), particularly since 2014, have eroded its credibility. Changes to the panel selecting Election Commissioners, replacing the Chief Justice of India with a senior minister, have raised concerns about impartiality. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Controversies involving alleged favouritism toward the ruling party, including overlooking violations by senior leaders, further damage the ECI\u2019s reputation as a neutral body. Ultimately, while ONOE offers a vision of electoral efficiency, its implementation must prioritize inclusivity, practicality, and adherence to democratic principles. Scepticisms about its potential to entrench political hegemony underscores the need for transparent and informed debate. Without addressing these concerns, ONOE risks becoming a tool for centralization and autocracy, compromising the very democratic institutions it seeks to streamline. Therefore, in the larger interest of democracy and the rights of the people, ONOE should not be pushed in a hurry.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The concept of \u201cOne Nation, One Election\u201d (ONOE) has roots in India\u2019s electoral history, with simultaneous elections for the Lok Sabha and state assemblies being the norm from 1952 till 1967. This system was disrupted by the premature dissolution of several state legislatures in 1968-69 and the early dissolution of the Lok Sabha in 1970, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[685],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-463009","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","category-editorial"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/nagalandpost.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/463009","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/nagalandpost.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/nagalandpost.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nagalandpost.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nagalandpost.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=463009"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/nagalandpost.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/463009\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/nagalandpost.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=463009"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nagalandpost.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=463009"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nagalandpost.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=463009"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}