"One Nation, One Election" is a concept that has been debated in Indian politics for several decades. This idea proposes holding simultaneous elections for both the Lok Sabha (parliamentary) and state legislative assemblies, with the aim of reducing the frequency and cost of elections in the country.

This concept has gained renewed attention in recent years, with proponents highlighting its potential to streamline governance and reduce election-related expenses. For SSB aspirants, understanding the pros and cons of this topic is essential for Lecturette and Group Discussion (GD) sessions.

Historical Context

- 1983: The Election Commission of India initially proposed the idea to minimize the frequency and expenses of elections.

- Atal Bihari Vajpayee's Support: Former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee supported the proposal, but no legislative changes were made.

- 2017: The Niti Aayog released a paper outlining the feasibility and possible implementation roadmap for simultaneous elections.

- 2018: The Law Commission of India examined the constitutional and legal aspects of implementing One Nation, One Election.

- 2019: Prime Minister Narendra Modi reignited the debate, calling for wider discussion on the subject during his Independence Day speech.

Legal and Constitutional Hurdles

Implementing One Nation, One Election would require significant amendments to India’s constitutional and legal framework. Key hurdles include:

- Constitutional Amendments: Articles 83, 85, 172, 174, and 356 govern the terms and dissolution of Lok Sabha and state assemblies. Amending these would require a two-thirds majority in both Houses of Parliament.

- State Autonomy: State governments might oppose the idea, viewing it as a potential infringement on federalism.

- Political Consensus: Achieving agreement among all political parties, especially regional parties, is a major challenge. Smaller parties may fear losing influence in a centralized electoral process.

- Operational Challenges: Aligning election timelines for states where assemblies may dissolve prematurely could pose logistical difficulties.

Arguments in Favor of One Nation, One Election

- Cost Efficiency: Simultaneous elections can reduce the massive expenses incurred during frequent elections.

- Administrative Ease: Law enforcement and election management agencies can focus their resources effectively.

- Reduced Disruption: Frequent elections disrupt governance and developmental work. A single election cycle would ensure smoother governance.

- Voter Participation: Reduced voter fatigue may lead to higher voter turnout.

- Political Stability: Governments can focus on long-term policy-making rather than short-term populist measures.

Arguments Against One Nation, One Election

- Threat to Federalism: Centralizing elections may undermine the autonomy of states.

- Logistical Challenges: Conducting elections on such a large scale requires significant administrative preparation.

- Premature Dissolution: If a state government is dissolved prematurely, it could create confusion about election schedules.

- Reduced Regional Focus: Simultaneous elections may divert focus from regional issues, prioritizing national narratives.

Conclusion

While the concept of One Nation, One Election promises reduced election costs and administrative efficiency, it also raises significant concerns about federalism, constitutional amendments, and political consensus. Any decision on its implementation must ensure a balanced approach that respects democratic values and regional diversity.

——————————

For SSB aspirants, presenting a balanced viewpoint during discussions will demonstrate critical thinking and awareness of national issues, which are essential qualities in the selection process.