Loading ...

Analyzing the "One Nation, One Election" Proposal

A Constitutional Perspective

The "One Nation, One Election" (ONOE) initiative proposes to synchronize elections for the Lok Sabha, State Assemblies, and local bodies. While it aims to streamline the electoral process, it raises significant constitutional concerns that merit thorough examination. This article delves into the relevant constitutional articles, implications for federalism, and why ONOE may contravene the spirit of the Indian Constitution.

Key Constitutional Articles Involved

Article 172: This article provides for a fixed tenure of five years for State Assemblies. The ONOE proposal seeks to amend this provision to synchronize the tenure of State Assemblies with that of the Lok Sabha. This alteration undermines the independence and autonomy of state governments, which are integral to India's federal structure.

Article 324: This article empowers the Election Commission of India (ECI) to conduct elections. While ONOE may streamline processes, it simultaneously places an extraordinary burden on the ECI, which has historically managed elections on a case-by-case basis. The logistical complexities involved in conducting simultaneous elections could compromise the integrity and efficiency of the electoral process.

Article 368: This article governs the procedure for constitutional amendments. For ONOE to be implemented, at least five amendments would be required, necessitating a special majority in both Houses of Parliament and ratification by at least half of the states. This raises questions about the feasibility of passing such amendments, especially in the current political landscape, where opposition parties largely oppose the initiative.

Article 325: This article ensures that there is a single electoral roll for each constituency. Any changes to this provision to accommodate ONOE would require careful consideration and state ratification, further complicating the amendment process.

Kesavananda Bharati Judgment: This landmark Supreme Court decision established that certain fundamental features of the Constitution, including federalism, cannot be altered by Parliament. The proposed amendments to curtail the tenures of State Assemblies threaten the basic structure doctrine, which safeguards the federal character of the Indian polity.

Implications for Federalism

Erosion of State Autonomy

The ONOE proposal directly challenges the principle of federalism enshrined in the Constitution. By imposing a uniform electoral schedule, it undermines the autonomy of State Assemblies, which are essential for local governance. The state governments should be free to decide their electoral timelines based on regional priorities and contexts.

Centralization of Power

The ONOE initiative reflects a broader trend toward centralization, diluting the power of states. A centralized electoral system could prioritize national issues over local concerns, marginalizing regional parties and issues that are crucial for the diverse populace of India. This could lead to a homogenization of political discourse, sidelining important regional voices.

Judicial Oversight

The Supreme Court has historically played a crucial role in upholding federalism. Any attempt to amend constitutional provisions affecting state elections would likely face judicial scrutiny. The courts may need to reaffirm the basic structure doctrine to protect the rights of states and their autonomy.

Arguments Against ONOE

Financial Justifications Lacking Empirical Support: Proponents argue that ONOE will lead to significant cost savings in conducting elections. However, the financial implications are overstated. For instance, the budget allocation for the Election Commission is relatively modest compared to the overall government expenditure. The notion that saved election funds will be redirected to infrastructure projects lacks empirical evidence.

Disruption of Developmental Activities: Supporters of ONOE claim that frequent elections disrupt developmental plans due to the Model Code of Conduct. However, past experiences show that states have continued to make significant progress despite holding regular elections. There is no substantial evidence to suggest that the electoral cycle significantly hampers governance.

Voter Engagement and Accountability: Frequent elections foster a stronger connection between representatives and constituents, enhancing accountability. Reducing the frequency of elections could lead to apathy among politicians, as they may not feel the need to engage with voters regularly.

Logistical Challenges: The logistical complexities of conducting simultaneous elections across diverse states with varying socio-political contexts could overwhelm the Election Commission. Past elections have demonstrated challenges even with staggered voting, raising concerns about the feasibility of ONOE.

Political Motivation: Critics argue that ONOE serves as a distraction from pressing national issues such as unemployment, inflation, and regional crises. Similar to the timing of the Women's Reservation Bill, which diverted attention from other governmental failures, ONOE may be viewed as a political maneuver rather than a genuine reform.

Conclusion

The "One Nation, One Election" proposal, while aimed at streamlining the electoral process, poses serious constitutional challenges that threaten the federal character of India. By undermining the autonomy of State Assemblies, increasing the centralization of power, and complicating the electoral process, ONOE may conflict with the fundamental principles enshrined in the Constitution.

The proposal not only requires significant constitutional amendments but also invites scrutiny regarding its practicality and intent. As India navigates its complex socio-political landscape, it is crucial to prioritize measures that enhance democratic engagement and respect the diverse voices across the nation, rather than impose a uniform electoral framework that could compromise the foundational principles of federalism.

You can learn more about the "One Nation, One Election" proposal by watching this insightful YouTube video

Part 1

Part 2