The BJP has taken a significant step toward implementing its ambitious "One Nation, One Election" plan by introducing the 129th Constitutional Amendment Bill in the Lok Sabha after cabinet approval. If this initiative culminates in success for the ruling coalition, it could mark a new turning point in Indian politics and the character of its democracy. While the future will assess its pros and cons, a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) will be formed in response to the opposition's demand to deliberate on the bill, which has been introduced by Union Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal. Debates will take place both in the committee and Parliament.
The JPC will consist of members proportional to the strength of different political parties, with the BJP, being the largest, chairing the committee and holding the majority of its seats. Undoubtedly, this bill, aimed at synchronizing Lok Sabha and State Assembly elections, is expected to secure approval. The government, confident of this outcome, has assured both ruling and opposition members that ample opportunity will be provided for discussion and debate when the bill is tabled.
The ruling party and the opposition each hold firm to their established arguments. However, when the time for debate arrives, it will be intriguing to observe how the government further substantiates its objectives and whether the opposition can introduce new counterpoints to the arguments it has reiterated for years. Another critical aspect will be how the government and the JPC address unresolved questions that linger even today. Ideally, the government should not only pave the way for this constitutional amendment but also win over the opposition with rational, practical, and well-founded responses. However, such a scenario seems far from likely.
OPPOSITION'S RESISTANCE AND CONCERNS
After the bill was introduced in the Lok Sabha, the opposition voiced its dissent, even calling for its withdrawal. Several members spoke against it. While the opposition's arguments are robust, they remain largely theoretical. Their apprehensions, though not unfounded, appear long-term, whereas politics often prioritizes immediate public satisfaction. The government, on the other hand, has presented arguments that cater to short-term benefits.
The ruling party’s case for "One Nation, One Election" is compelling. Few would favor the perpetual cycle of elections that currently prevails in the country. The associated Model Code of Conduct and other mechanisms often delay policy decisions and slow down development. A significant portion of taxpayer money is spent on elections. For instance, after the Lok Sabha elections, assembly elections are due in Jammu & Kashmir, Haryana, Maharashtra, Jharkhand, Delhi, Bihar, and, next year, in Assam, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, Kerala, and Puducherry. The flaws of frequent elections are well-known.
THE GOVERNMENT’S JUSTIFICATIONS
The government argues that synchronized elections will ensure political stability, continuity, and good governance. State governments and administrations will focus on development rather than being repeatedly involved in electoral processes. Security forces will also have the opportunity to concentrate on their primary duties. Political parties will refrain from making extravagant populist promises, reducing unnecessary fiscal strain. The use of black money in elections will diminish, thereby curbing corruption. With billions saved in election expenses, the economy will improve. Government employees, including millions of teachers engaged in election duties, will be relieved, and voter turnout might also increase.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT AND GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE
Critics may see "One Nation, One Election" as inconsistent today, but from 1951 to 1967, Lok Sabha and State Assembly elections were conducted simultaneously every five years. Later, due to the reorganization of states and the creation of new ones, elections began occurring at different times. However, such conditions no longer exist. Countries like the United States, France, Sweden, Canada, Germany, Japan, Indonesia, and South Africa conduct elections at fixed intervals. With proper planning and effort, India can also achieve this.
The proposal suggests extending the tenure of all state assemblies to align with the next Lok Sabha elections in 2029, after which simultaneous elections can be implemented. The government presents this electoral reform as a commitment to progress, appealing directly to the public's understanding and expectations.
QUESTIONS THAT NEED CLARITY
While the government's intentions may be genuine, and its outreach mechanisms can effectively convey its vision to the public, it must also engage the opposition to consider this proposal beyond partisan interests. However, the government must address several pressing concerns: