Panel evaluating One Nation, One Election proposal shouldn’t be guided by political calculations

The involvement of numerous government officials and professionals in the electoral process can impact the country's overall productivity. Furthermore, the implementation of welfare schemes faces delays as political parties in power become more cautious about their announcements and spending once the model code of conduct is enforced.

The core concept behind One Nation, One Election is to reduce these costs substantially by consolidating the electoral process. However, it is evident that the scope of innovation has been limited thus far. It is crucial to explore alternative methods to curb election expenses by undertaking a comprehensive reform of election financing.

Varied Voting Behaviours

In the current electoral system, the approach of the electorate towards national-level and state-level elections differs significantly. During state elections, voters engage in discussions about state-specific issues and needs, and their voting decisions reflect these considerations.

However, when it comes to the Lok Sabha elections, the focus shifts to national politics, issues spanning various states, political alliances, and, most importantly, deciding who, both in terms of party and individual, will lead at the national level.

Simultaneously holding national and state elections can potentially disrupt this thought process. If a dominant national issue takes centrestage before an election, there's a considerable risk that voters may base their decisions primarily on it, possibly overlooking state-specific concerns.

This could alter voting patterns, as a substantial portion of the electorate might struggle to discern regional and national issues. The fundamental principle of democracy is to provide voters with sufficient time to choose their representatives for both state and national governance.

In large states, this synchronisation could have a profound impact. If the electorate favours the incumbent state government, it can wield considerable influence in the Lok Sabha polls as well.

Conversely, in the case of strong anti-incumbency sentiment, this influence can work against the ruling party. On the positive side, state governments may become more accountable and driven to implement new policies and welfare programmes.

However, there are also drawbacks to this scenario. If the party in power at the national level holds a substantial majority in large states, it could potentially return to power by influencing voters in those states where it holds power.

Many Challenges To The Concept

The concept of One Nation, One Election indeed faces complexities in various scenarios, such as a no-confidence motion, premature dissolution, or the dismissal of a state government under Article 356.

In situations where the incumbent government loses its majority, the convention is that the cabinet resigns, paving way for fresh elections. To avoid this scenario, an alternative suggestion would be to allow a confidence motion to see if the Opposition can muster enough support to take power, failing which the incumbent government would continue.

But then the fundamental concept of “first past the post” – the basis for establishing democratic governments – could face significant challenges. The possibility of regaining or retaining power through a series of no-confidence and confidence motions highlights the need for careful consideration and planning before implementing the new framework.

However, if for some reason the incumbent government itself doesn't wish to continue, the only option would be another election, which, in turn, could reintroduce the issues of costs and productivity that the One Nation, One Election concept sought to address initially.

Should a presidential system of governance be considered as a workable alternative when a state government loses its authority, it has the potential to unsettle both the democratic essence and the federal framework of the nation. The central government would consistently confront allegations of exploiting its authority to displace regional parties in states where it lacks conventional electoral support, all while endeavouring to sway voters through initiatives exclusively tailored for those regions.

Essentially, it falls upon the Parliament to determine whether the financial advantages of the new electoral process outweigh these democratic concerns.

Sreejith Panickar is a political commentator and an independent researcher. Views are personal, and do not represent the stand of this publication.