Opinion M Venkaiah Naidu on One Nation One Election: Together, for the greater good
It will encourage parties to work towards a more stable, efficient, and accountable democracy
One of the key advantages of holding simultaneous elections is that they encourage political parties to work together.
-
Share -
-
-
In Bharat, the world’s largest democracy, the concept of One Nation, One Election has been a topic of fervent debate for several years. In recent times, it has gained currency with the Union government concretising plans in this direction. The proposal of One Nation, One Election calls for holding simultaneous elections for the Lok Sabha and state legislative assemblies, emphasising the need for consensus in the national interest. Beyond the political discourse on the issue, we need to delve into the compelling argument of cost-saving, as well as the historical context of One Nation, One Election.
One of the most pressing issues facing the Indian electoral system is the staggering cost incurred in each election cycle. With elections being held at different levels of government throughout the year, India’s election machinery is perpetually active. Conducting elections, securing polling stations, deploying security forces, and the logistics involved are costly endeavours. Beyond the monetary cost, comes the question of logistics and the toll it takes on human resources. Frequent elections require human resources, including police personnel, administrative staff drawn from various departments, teachers and lecturers, who are often deployed for election duties. This results in the disruption of regular government work and hampers development projects. It also cuts into the academic schedules of schools and colleges.
The financial burden imposed by frequent general elections is huge. If expenses of state assembly elections, by-elections, local bodies and panchayat polls are added to this, the annual election expenditure becomes astronomical.
Frequent elections tend to breed political polarisation as politicians are in a perpetual election mode, focusing on short-term gains rather than long-term policy planning. We have seen that this leads to policy paralysis in state after state and prevents governments from effectively addressing pressing issues.
The concept of One Nation, One Election presents a compelling solution to these issues. Under this system, elections at both the national and state levels would be synchronised, while those of panchayats and local bodies are also held simultaneously, allowing India to hold elections only once every five years, coinciding with the Lok Sabha elections. This will prove to be a win-win situation because the capital thus saved could be better allocated to critical sectors like healthcare, education and infrastructure development.
Fewer election cycles mean less disruption in government work, allowing bureaucrats and elected officials to focus on governance. Saving precious work hours leads to higher productivity and more efficient resource allocation and project implementation. This is a big plus for a country making major strides in all domains and emerging as a key world leader.
One of the key advantages of holding simultaneous elections is that they encourage political parties to work together. They would be forced to find common ground and consensus on crucial national and state-level issues, as the electorate would evaluate their performance on a broader scale. This could result in more collaborative policy making and a better, more harmonious understanding of issues.
There is yet another important facet to simultaneous elections which we need to look into. Synchronised elections would cut voter fatigue and make them participate more pro-actively in elections. Voters are often subjected to multiple elections in a single year, leading to fatigue, indifference and potential disengagement.
Therefore, there is a need for consensus on the issue of synchronised elections in national interest. The concept of One Nation, One Election promotes the idea that the nation’s interests should prevail over narrow political gains. It encourages parties to come together for the greater good and work towards a more stable, efficient, and accountable democracy.
Why should there be any debate on the issue of One Nation, One Election? In fact, from the elections held in 1952, 1957 and 1962 (during the tenure of our first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru) and later in 1967 (under Indira Gandhi) India had simultaneous elections.
The dismissal of state assemblies in 1968 and 1969, as well as the advancing of general elections in 1971, disrupted this established cycle of One Nation, One Election.
Without touching upon the political dimensions of this disruption of the electoral cycle, it is important to note that the Election Commission of India had proposed synchronised elections in 1983. This was mooted again by the Law Commission of India more than two decades ago in 1999. The BJP, in its manifesto in 2002, had also proposed the idea of One Nation, One Election, which was endorsed by the Parliamentary Standing Committee twice — in 2015 and 2018.
In 2018, the NITI Aayog also proposed One Nation, One Election. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has mooted the idea more than once, and the Centre has set up a committee headed by former President Ramnath Kovind to study the proposal. Therefore, looking at the historical background, it is erroneous to assume that the idea is something new or that this is an electoral experiment never tried before.
It is imperative that Indian policymakers seriously consider this proposal as a vital step towards a more efficient and united democracy, where national interest takes precedence over political differences.
The writer is a former Vice President of India
-
Share
-
-
-
Share
