Can 'One Nation, One Election' truly simplify India's electoral process?

Paris: On Tuesday, GoI introduced the first set of constitutional amendments required to synchronise general and state elections, an idea referred to as 'One Nation, One Election' (ONOE). These proposed amendments - three amendments and inclusion of a new article - emerged from the recommendations of a high committee chaired by former president Ram Nath Kovind, who put together a 18,000-pg report nine months ago explaining how synchronising the electoral calendar could be done.

The proposed Act lets go of some important recommendations of the committee, such as including local elections. It makes provisions for the mechanisms required to induce and maintain synchronicity. Two key aspects are:

• Necessary curtailing of the term of elected assemblies to synchronise the calendar.

• Limitation of the term served by an assembly elected inside the cycle.

Should a state government fall, an election would be held, and the newly formed government would serve the remainder of the previous government's term.

In the statement of objects and reasons, the Act evokes the necessity to reduce time and cost of elections. It underlines that imposition of the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) and mobilisation of human resources to conduct elections hinders development and public service delivery, and disrupts public life.

This highly complex project has three main aspects: feasibility, effectiveness and desirability. First, can it be done? Re-synchronising elections demands a profound overhaul of constitutional rules that preside over elections, and definition of terms of elected assemblies. This can be done through amendments, whose scope will be greater than the current Act. The Kovind report lists the changes to the law that ONOE would require, including 18 proposed constitutional amendments.

Will synchronised elections deliver their intended benefits? This is a hypothetical question. One could argue that the sources of problems it seeks to address - improving service delivery, or keeping cost of elections under control - are many and do not simply stem from the current electoral calendar. They have more to do with the unwillingness to pursue meaningful, targeted reforms such as political financing reform.

The shocking aspect of election cost is the money parties spend, not the cost of conducting the election itself. In the same vein, India's administrative woes are many, but they are not caused by an 'excess of democracy'.

Presenting ONOE as a matter of technicality and common sense obfuscates its deeply political character. For example, the idea of fixed tenure of elected assemblies is not merely a technical rule. It derives from the fundamental democratic principle that the term of an elected assembly ought to be determined by voters, and not by the central government.

Maintaining synchronicity would also require an extension of the scope of President's Rule, which wasn't conceived as an instrument of regulation of the electoral calendar. Expanding its scope would open the way to new forms of arbitrary abuse of power by the Centre.

Should it be done? Critics of ONOE - including myself - have raised the danger posed by nationalising the electoral process. Like all reforms preceded by the moniker 'One Nation...', ONOE aims at centralising and concentrating powers. National personality contests would likely precede regional issues in a simultaneous election regime.

Indeed, voters are discerning and can distinguish between state and national issues. The question is, how much space the parties dominating the national space will give to regional concerns. As far as BJP is concerned, it would be hypocritical to deny that it seeks to draw an electoral advantage from nationalising state elections.

The debate over the frequency of elections raises important questions. But it might be moot as BJP does not have the numbers to get the two-thirds majority necessary to pass the Act. The text has now been sent to a JPC, which will have 90 days to examine it and make consultations. So far, the Opposition opposes it, citing fundamental political and constitutional reservations. It is unclear where support outside NDA might come from.

It is said that politics is the art of the possible. Since it came to power, BJP has sought to defy this adage by creating its own political reality and pushing conventional politics' boundaries. In this case, this reform is a test of BJP's ability to overcome the constraints imposed by its reduced majority. It would also signal to voters and their supporters that it remains undaunted by adversity, and will defy any odds in pursuit of its objectives.