India is the world’s largest democracy, which is almost always in election season. With 28 states, eight union territories, and nearly a billion eligible voters, elections are a regular part of the country’s political life. For years, Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has promoted the idea of “One Nation, One Election,” one of a plan to hold state and national elections together every five years.
On Tuesday, India’s law minister presented a bill to make this system a reality and sparked a debate about power structures. Supporters argue that this approach would reduce campaign costs, ease the burden on administrative resources, and simplify governance.
Former President Ram Nath Kovind, who headed a committee that recommended holding elections simultaneously last year, called it a game changer and cited economists who believe it could boost India’s GDP by up to 1.5%. Critics, however, worry that it could weaken India’s federal system, concentrating power in the central government and reducing states’ independence.
What is One Nation, One Election?
India’s democracy operates on multiple levels, each with its own election cycle. There are general elections to choose members of parliament, state elections to pick lawmakers, and separate votes for local governments at the rural and urban levels. By-elections are held to fill vacancies due to resignation, death, or disqualification.
These elections take place every five years but at different times. The government now wants to synchronize them. In March, a panel led by Kovind proposed holding both state and general elections together in its detailed 18,626-page report. It also suggested local elections should happen within 100 days.
The committee recommended that if a government loses an election, then new elections should be held, but the government’s term would last only until the next synchronized election. While this might sound intense, holding simultaneous elections isn’t new to India. This system was the norm from the first election in 1951 until 1967, when political instability and early dissolutions of state assemblies led to staggered elections.
Efforts to bring back simultaneous elections have been discussed for decades with proposals from the Election Commission in 1983, the Law Commission in 1999, and Niti Aayog, a government think tank, in 2017.
Does India Need Simultaneous Elections?
The main argument for simultaneous elections is saving on election costs. According to the Centre for Media Studies, a Delhi-based nonprofit, India spent more than 600 billion rupees, which is equivalent to $7.07 billion and £5.54 billion, on the 2019 general elections, making it the most expensive in the world at that time.
However, critics say that trying to reduce costs might backfire. With 900 million eligible voters, organizing enough voting machines, security, and election officials would require careful planning and resources.
A 2015 parliamentary committee report by the law and justice department stated that India already spends 45 billion rupees on general and state elections. The report estimated that if elections were synchronized, then an additional 92.84 billion rupees would be needed to buy new voting machines and paper audit trails (VVPAT), which print a slip of paper with the voter’s selected party symbol. These machines would also need replacement every 15 years.
Former Chief Election Commissioner SY Quraishi has expressed concerns about the high costs and said they should have been addressed in the Kovind committee’s report, especially since cost-cutting was a key reason behind the proposal.
Key Challenges in Implementing the Proposal
Implementing simultaneous elections would require changes to India’s Constitution, which is the country’s highest law. Some of these changes would need to be approved by at least half of India’s 28 state assemblies.
While the BJP-led government has a majority in parliament, it lacks the two-thirds majority needed to amend the Constitution. The Kovind committee looked at election models from countries like South Africa, Sweden, and Indonesia and recommended their best practices for India.
In September, the cabinet approved the idea of holding simultaneous elections and supported two bills to push for the system. Federal Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal introduced the bills in parliament.
One bill seeks a constitutional amendment to allow joint federal and state elections. While the other aims to align assembly elections in Delhi, Puducherry, and Jammu & Kashmir with the general election schedule. The government has said it is open to sending the bills to a parliamentary committee and consulting political parties to build consensus.
Who Supports the Proposal and Who Opposes It?
The Kovind committee reached out to all Indian parties for feedback, receiving responses from 47.Thirty-two supported the idea of simultaneous elections while 15 opposed it.
Most of the supporters were BJP allies or friendly parties, emphasizing time, cost, and resource savings. The BJP has argued that the model code of conduct has cost India “800 days of governance” in the last five years by delaying welfare programs.
Prime Minister Modi has also backed simultaneous elections and said, “Frequent elections are hindering the nation’s progress.” He added, “With elections happening every three to six months.Every scheme gets tied to the elections.”
Opposition parties, which are led by the Congress, have called simultaneous elections ‘undemocratic’ and argued that they would undermine India’s parliamentary system. They believe such a system would give national parties an unfair advantage over regional ones.
These parties also suggested improving transparency in election funding as a better solution to address concerns about election costs.
