Unified Elections

India’s ‘One Nation, One Election’ (ONOE) initiative, championed by Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government, seeks to synchronize elections for both the national Parliament (Lok Sabha) and state legislative assemblies.

The proposal presents a radical departure from the status quo, offering potential gains in efficiency, fiscal prudence, and governance stability. The premise is both straightforward and ambitious: reduce the frequent election cycle that grips India in a near-perpetual state of political campaigning and instead hold simultaneous elections once every five years.

India’s election cycle is a mammoth affair. With 28 states and 8 union territories, each operating on different electoral schedules, national and state elections are an ongoing event, often causing policy paralysis. Governments, perpetually mindful of upcoming elections, are incentivized to prioritize short-term populist policies rather than long-term development goals. By aligning all elections, governance can shift its focus back to uninterrupted policy-making.

However, ONOE faces daunting challenges - the potential erosion of federalism, logistical difficulties and marginalization of regional voices. The proposal could upend the delicate balance between central and state governments. Conducting simultaneous elections in India is a massive logistical challenge, given the country’s 900 million eligible voters and the need to deploy millions of polling officials and security personnel.

Organizing both national and state elections require more resources and precise coordination. The Election Commission of India (ECI) would face immense pressure to ensure free, fair, and smooth elections, and unlike staggered polls, simultaneous elections complicate managing crises such as political violence, natural disasters or allegations of malpractice.

The ECI spends billions on conducting polls across the country, from voter mobilization to security arrangements. The ONOE framework could radically reduce these expenses. As demonstrated by the Netherlands, where simultaneous elections for the Dutch Parliament and municipal councils streamline costs, such efficiency gains are replicated in both time and money saved. The fewer elections a nation must hold, the less strain on its resources.

However, not every stakeholder will view ONOE favourably. The Indian media, in particular, stands to lose in revenue terms. The staggered nature of India’s elections means that news outlets, especially television and digital media, enjoy a steady flow of advertising revenue from political parties over multiple election cycles. A continuous wave of elections keeps media houses flush with campaign ads, debates, and political analysis shows—making elections a lucrative business.

In sum, ONOE offers India a chance to enhance the efficiency of its democratic process. If implemented with care, this reform could lead to better governance, reduced fiscal waste, and a more engaged electorate.