In a major step towards synchronizing elections across India, the Union Cabinet has given the green light to the ‘One Nation, One Election’ proposal. This initiative seeks to conduct simultaneous polls for the Lok Sabha and state Assemblies, with local body and panchayat elections held within the following 100 days. The approval comes after the government accepted a report submitted by a panel led by former President Ram Nath Kovind.

Sources indicate that the panel, which includes prominent leaders such as Home Minister Amit Shah and Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal, advocated for the implementation of simultaneous elections. The panel’s report stated there was “unanimous agreement” on holding such polls, potentially starting in 2029. The proposed system also suggests provisions for a ‘unity government’ in the event of inconclusive results or no-confidence motions.

This proposal has been a significant part of the Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) electoral manifestos for the 2019 and 2024 general elections. While the BJP-led government is committed to implementing the plan during Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s current term, it faces stiff resistance from opposition parties. Congress leader Mallikarjun Kharge, along with 14 other parties, has strongly criticized the proposal, stating that “the people will not accept it.”

Making ‘One Nation, One Election’ a reality will require substantial changes to the Indian Constitution, which mandates at least six amendments. While the BJP holds a simple majority in Parliament, it is short of the two-thirds majority needed to pass the required amendments. In the Rajya Sabha, the BJP is 52 votes short, while in the Lok Sabha, it is 72 votes away from the necessary two-thirds threshold. Additionally, the system will need ratification from all states and Union Territories.

Panel’s Arguments for the Proposal:

The high-profile panel has outlined several benefits of synchronizing elections. It argues that holding simultaneous polls will streamline the electoral process and improve governance by eliminating the frequent disruptions caused by staggered elections. This, the panel claims, will optimize resources and lead to greater economic stability. Businesses, free from the uncertainty of multiple elections, can operate without fearing sudden policy changes, which in turn could boost economic growth.

The panel further highlights that simultaneous elections could reduce disruptions in sectors such as manufacturing and supply chains, as it would prevent migrant workers from taking frequent leaves to vote in different elections. Additionally, it suggests that a single election cycle would alleviate the policy paralysis often caused by back-to-back elections, ensuring smoother governance.

Government’s Stand on ‘One Nation, One Election’:

Union Ministers Ashwini Vaishnaw and Anurag Thakur have expressed strong support for the proposal. Vaishnaw emphasized the potential cost savings from reduced security deployments and logistical expenses, while also citing public support. He noted that during initial consultations, around 80% of respondents backed the ‘One Nation, One Election’ system.

Thakur, reflecting on India’s electoral history, pointed out that simultaneous elections were the norm until 1962. He argued that reviving this system would not only save money but also help India achieve its goal of becoming a developed nation (Viksit Bharat) much sooner than the projected 2047 target.

Opposition’s Concerns:

Despite the government’s enthusiasm, the opposition remains firm in its resistance. Congress leader Mallikarjun Kharge criticized the proposal as impractical and a diversionary tactic, especially with elections approaching in states like Haryana. He emphasized that simultaneous elections could undermine India’s democratic fabric and pose significant logistical and constitutional challenges. According to Kharge, “the people will not accept this,” casting doubt on the plan’s success.

Fifteen political parties, including Congress, have voiced concerns about the constitutional amendments required and the practical difficulties of implementing this system. They argue that holding simultaneous elections could concentrate power, disrupt regional autonomy, and diminish the importance of state-specific issues.