ONOE has divided the polity. For some, it represents a transformative electoral reform. For others, it undermines the basic structure of the Constitution, federalism and the democratic setup. The legislation now requires a two-thirds majority in the House and may need ratification by half of the states.
For now, ONOE Bills have been sent to a JPC for scrutiny. There are three related exercises with serious implications: census, delimitation of constituencies, and implementation of the women’s reservation law. The separation of powers, Centre-state relationships cannot be overlooked either. Hopefully, JPC will debate the ONOE Bills on their merits, avoiding noise and partisan positions.
Elections are, lest one forgets, for the people. So, a higher level of citizen feedback on ONOE must be conducted, beyond what the Kovind panel on simultaneous elections in March recommended. The panel had supported ONOE, arguing that it will save resources and limit governance disruptions. In the past, ONOE has been supported by the law commission, parliamentary standing committees and Niti Aayog. Former president Pranab Mukherjee also supported it.
India is not new to ONOE. In 1951-52, 1957, 1962 and 1967, Lok Sabha and assembly polls were held simultaneously. Disruptions began after some assemblies were dissolved before time. Subsequently, coalition politics and new states made staggered polls inevitable. Some states — Odisha, Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh and Sikkim — have experienced simultaneous parliamentary and assembly polls together even in recent years.
EC makes the best efforts to combine elections and compress polling phases. But factors like festivals, weather and security concerns create hurdles. Scheduling issues can be much more complex when elections are moved in one go. Yet, ONOE isn’t unfeasible because:
- EC has the experience of holding the world’s largest polling exercise. With voters nearing a billion, turnout will likely be pretty much the same as the last national election.
- Over 1.05 mn polling stations with assured facilities are already in place, even in most remote areas.
- The last Lok Sabha election was staffed and secured by 15 mn personnel, which may see a minor increase under ONOE.
- Mobilisation of additional EVMs and VVPATs beyond the 55 lakh deployed in the 2024 general elections will take time. But it can be done.
- EC’s enterprise to check violence, inducements, campaign clutter and fake narratives, and to reduce redpolls and secure higher turnouts will remain undiminished. While ONOE’s logistics and financial costs have been often elaborated, the detrimental effect of back-to-back polls on social cohesion has not been discussed.
- Contestants often opt for abusive campaign methods, despite EC regulations. Unfortunately, many such efforts have proved electorally productive. These are now amplified by AI-equipped digital media that lingers in the everyday lives of citizens long after elections are done and dusted. India can ill afford such pathological consequences. ONOE could reduce this accumulating risk.
- Many argue that issues like misinformation, black money and competitive freebies deserve more urgent attention than implementing ONOE. The Constitution-framers created the powerful figure of the voter as a safeguard against the erosion of democracy and encroachment of illegitimacy. The right to vote, granted to citizens from India’s first elections regard less of gender, class, caste or creed, serves as their bargaining chip against those in power.
At regular intervals, the ordinary Indian has a chance to approve or disapprove of representatives. Nothing in the ONOE format suggests that this power is undermined, although it may be helpful to determine whether voters derive more value and fulfilment from increased election frequency. Proponents of ONOE believe it could boost voter turnout by addressing voter fatigue.
It is an open question whether the Constitution envisions frequent elections, or if it leaves such matters to amendments like ONOE Bills to restore simultaneity. Given the far-reaching implications of ONOE, the debate should be guided by operational, liberal and forward-thinking considerations.
Even if democracy doesn’t require discipline or orderliness as a precondition, it certainly can’t treat chaos as a virtue. The essence lies in prioritising the people’s will above all. In this case, the quality, rather than the quantity, of elections is key. This is a shared responsibility between EC and political parties, ONOE or no ONOE.
