The concept of ‘One Nation, One Election’ represents a bold attempt to overhaul India’s electoral system, addressing issues of cost, governance, and electoral fatigue. While the idea appears promising on paper, its implementation is fraught with challenges, both constitutional and political, that could reshape the nation’s democratic fabric in unforeseen ways. At its core, this initiative aims to synchronise elections for the Lok Sabha, state assemblies, and Union territories, eventually extending to local bodies like municipalities and panchayats. Proponents argue that such synchronisation would reduce the financial burden of frequent elections and ensure smoother governance by minimising disruptions caused by the model code of conduct.

However, these perceived advantages come with significant complexities that merit close scrutiny. The implementation of simultaneous elections requires extensive constitutional amendments. For example, altering Articles 83 and 172 to align the durations of Parliament and state legislatures demands a two-thirds majority in both Houses of Parliament. Given the current parliamentary arithmetic, achieving this is an uphill battle. Subsequent phases of the plan, such as synchronising elections for local bodies, will also require ratification by at least half the state legislatures, highlighting the enormous legislative challenges. Moreover, any such amendments must be assessed for their impact on the federal structure.

Advertisement

In a country as diverse as India, the autonomy of states is a cornerstone of governance. Aligning elections could inadvertently shift the balance of power toward the Centre, raising concerns about the erosion of federal principles. Political and logistical hurdles further complicate this vision. Smaller regional parties, which rely on state specific issues to build their voter base, view synchronised elections as a threat to their relevance. Many fear that simultaneous polls would amplify the influence of national parties, leaving little room for regional voices. Securing the support of these stakeholders will require careful negotiation and assurances that their concerns are addressed. Logistically, the scale of conducting nationwide electi – ons at once is daunting. It demands an extraordinary deployment of manpower, security, and resources.

Local body elections, in particular, add another layer of complexity, as they require unique preparations like the coordination of electoral rolls between the Election Commission of India and state Election Commissions. These challenges could strain institutional capacities and potentially affect the quality of elections. While the initiative reflects a long-term vision for electoral reform, its timing raises questions. Introducing such a proposal just months before the Delhi elections suggests a political motive, with the move possibly serving as a tool to project the ruling party’s commitment to efficiency and reform. However, failing to build consensus could reveal the inherent limitations of this ambitious agenda. The vision of ‘One Nation, One Election’ offers an opportunity to streamline India’s electoral process, but its realisation demands careful consideration of constitutional integrity, political consensus, and logistical readiness. Above all, any reform must strengthen India’s democratic fabric without undermining the diversity and autonomy that define it.