One Nation, One Election - the ruling-BJP government’s controversial proposal to synchronise elections to the Parliament and State Assemblies - is NOT a new concept. India did actually vote this way from 1951 until '67.
So what happened, and why are we looking to go back?
India’s history of simultaneous elections
The Democratic Republic of India held her first election in 1951 with simultaneous ballots for both the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies.
The practice continued for three subsequent polls -- in 1957, '62 and '67 but the cycle was disrupted in '68. This after the Haryana Assembly was prematurely dissolved. Punjab, UP, Bihar and West Bengal followed in 1969 with Kerala joining them in 1970. This resulted in out-of-cycle elections for all of these states.
Then came Parliamentary polls. Prime Minister Indira Gandhi called for the early dissolution of the 4th Lok Sabha and promptly won the subsequent elections in 1971. Further disruption came in 1975, with the proclamation of ‘Emergency’. For two years until 1977, the democratic machinery was put on pause. Which meant the '76 elections were delayed.
No Lok Sabha was able to complete a term for the next two decades until Atal Bihari Vajpayee's third term as Prime Minister, between 1999 and 2004. Over time, State Assembly cycles too were further disrupted. Sometimes due to political pressures, sometimes security concerns.
And now, the Modi government wants to go back to simultaneous elections.
One Nation, One Election: Pros and Cons
According to the ruling-BJP government, synchronised polls would save money, reduce administrative burden, streamline governance, and even improve voter participation.
But critics claim it would violate the 'basic structure’ doctrine of the Constitution. A principle established by the Supreme Court.
Let's face it. For One Nation-One Election to be practical, we need to account for premature dissolution of legislatures. One option is imposing the President's rule for the rest of the term. OR we could elect a legislature for a shorter term -- until the next synchronised polls. Critics argue this would infringe upon voters' rights, the federal structure of the Constitution, and weaken the separation of powers - all considered critical to the basic structure of the Constitution.
Politically, opposition parties have another concern -- that the national rhetoric would drown regional issues during simultaneous polls. Regional parties could lose their strongholds, further centralising control over policy-making.
But despite criticism, every expert committee has been in favour of One Nation-One Election. Be it parliamentary panels, the Law Commission, or the Election Commission themselves.
Question is, whether the government can garner the two-thirds majority required to pass the Amendments.
