Introduction
On 17th December 2024, India’s Lok Sabha introduced the One Nation One Election Bill, sparking a fiery clash between the ruling BJP and opposition parties. Hailed by the government as the “biggest electoral reform in Indian history,” the bill promises synchronized national and state elections every five years. Supporters claim it could boost GDP by ₹5 lakh crores, while critics label it a threat to federalism and regional voices. Is this a visionary masterstroke or a step toward autocracy? Let’s dissect the debate.
What Is the One Nation One Election Bill?
The bill proposes aligning Lok Sabha and state assembly elections into a single cycle every five years. Currently, India witnesses elections almost every year—in 2024 alone, Lok Sabha polls were followed by votes in Jammu & Kashmir, Haryana, and Maharashtra. This perpetual election mode triggers three critical issues:
- Governance Paralysis
- The Model Code of Conduct (MCC) halts policy announcements and development projects for months. A 2017 study revealed 7 months of governance suspension in a 5-year term due to staggered elections.
- Example: Maharashtra loses 300 days of governance every term to election-related disruptions.
- Skyrocketing Costs
- The 2019 Lok Sabha elections cost ₹60,000 crores. Holding state and local polls separately adds thousands of crores more.
- Administrative Strain
- Schools become polling booths, police are diverted to security, and officials prioritize elections over public services.
The BJP argues synchronizing elections will save money, reduce disruptions, and boost GDP by 1.5% (₹4.5 lakh crores). But is it feasible?
Why the Opposition Calls It a “Threat to Democracy”
1. Constitutional Hurdles
India’s federal structure allows states to operate independently. Aligning elections requires:
- Amending Articles 83, 85, 172, 174, and 356 of the Constitution.
- Approval from 50% of states, a steep hurdle in today’s polarized climate.
- Dissolving state assemblies prematurely or extending terms, risking President’s Rule misuse.
2. Silencing Regional Voices
- Synchronized elections favor national parties with deeper pockets. In 2014, BJP’s “Modi wave” overshadowed Haryana’s local issues (unemployment, farmer distress), helping it sweep state polls.
- Regional parties like DMK (Tamil Nadu) fear losing relevance as national narratives (e.g., national security) dominate campaigns.
3. Eroding Accountability
- Frequent elections let voters punish underperforming governments midterm. Example: In 2024, UP voters slashed BJP’s Lok Sabha seats from 62 to 33 despite Yogi’s 2022 state win.
- With one election every 5 years, governments may ignore accountability, knowing voters can’t react sooner.
The BJP’s Plan: Phased Implementation & Pitfalls
Phase 1: Syncing Lok Sabha & State Elections
- One Booth, Two Votes: Voters cast separate ballots for MP and MLA on the same day.
- Appointment Date (1 May 2029): All state terms reset to align with Lok Sabha. Karnataka (2028 term end) extends by a year; Delhi (2030) shortens by one.
Phase 2: Including Local Body Elections
- Municipal and panchayat polls within 100 days of general elections.
If a state government collapses midterm (e.g., Maharashtra in 2027), the new government serves only the remaining term (2 years). Critics argue short-term regimes will prioritize populist freebies over long-term reforms.
Efficiency vs. Democracy
- Pros:
- Saves ₹10,000+ crores annually.
- Reduces policy paralysis and bureaucratic strain.
- Cons:
- Marginalizes regional issues and parties.
- Risks “national wave” dominance (77% voters pick the same party for state and centre).
- Short-term governments may lack reform incentives.
Alternative Fix: Revise the Model Code of Conduct to limit disruptions without upending the electoral system.
Conclusion: A Democratic Crossroads
The One Nation One Election Bill presents a trade-off: efficiency and savings versus regional diversity and accountability. While the BJP envisions a streamlined India, critics warn of centralization echoing “One Nation, One Leader.” As Parliament debates, citizens must ask: Is synchronization worth silencing local voices, or can India find a middle path?