Can ONOE work? It has one good argument going for it, and that’s enough
The One Nation, One Election proposal, a bill for which was introduced in the Lok Sabha last week, may or may not become a reality. But it is a bit embarrassing to see both the NDA and the Opposition alliance offering us arguments that can easily be refuted or devalued. Just as one simple message that connects with the voter can win an election, one solid argument – for or against ONOE – should be enough to validate or subvert the case for ONOE.
Let us dispense with bad or weak arguments first before we come to the less refutable ones on both sides. The unstated fear among Opposition politicians – that a popular Narendra Modi may end up winning both Centre and state elections if they are held together – must be addressed first if the latter are to sign up in favour of ONOE.
First, ONOE is not going to happen before 2029, by which time Modi will be 79, and possibly well past his political peak. Does the Opposition believe that even at that age, and with five more years of anti-incumbency building up, he can carry the nation and most states all by himself? If their answer is yes, it means they don’t believe in their own message to voters. Moreover, if the assumption is that people will vote similarly if state and national elections are held together, the Opposition should be happy: in 2024, if elections had been held simultaneously, it would have won Uttar Pradesh, Haryana and Maharashtra in the assemblies. By holding them separately, the Opposition lost momentum and gave the Bharatiya Janata Party time to re-strategise and win.
Second, the NDA’s cost-saving argument about holding elections simultaneously is a weak one. Sure, crores will be saved if elections to states and Centre are held together, but democracy can never be about saving money on elections. That is an argument for autocracy since elections can be few and far between, if not actually farcical. The high cost of holding elections should not deter us from opposing ONOE, assuming the argument is based on sound logic.
Costs can be saved even without ONOE, by state funding of elections, and curbing opaque private financing. Just by ending the Members of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme (MPLADS), which favours sitting MPs, we can save enough money (over Rs 20,000 crore over a five-year period) to finance modest state funding of candidates and parties.
Third, another weak argument – this one from the Opposition – is that the logistics involved in holding both parliamentary and state elections at the same time can be challenging. Also, voters may find it difficult to distinguish between state and national elections. The varying results in Odisha before 2024, where people voted differently in state and parliamentary elections that were held simultaneously, tell us that voters do know the difference. Even assuming this is difficult, especially in an election where national security comes up as a major issue (as in 2019), one can hold voting on two separate days around the same time for parliamentary and state elections. The problem of limited voter confusion is not insoluble.
Fourth, a stronger argument against ONOE is what happens if a government falls after an election. While the proposed solution is to hold mid-term elections only for the remainder of the period before the next schedule of national elections, this will be unsatisfactory, especially if a government falls in its fourth year. No one will be happy about fighting an election with an effective validity of just one year.
Also read: BJP is 10 years late in pushing one nation, one election. Modi isn’t as popular now
Finding solutions
There can be solutions to this problem by small dilutions of the basic ONOE idea. One is to hold two elections in a five-year period (suggested by many), one every two-and-a-half years.
Other solutions can also be found. For example, if a government falls, it does not imply that elections have to be held immediately. The elected legislators continue to hold legitimacy, and the governor can be empowered to select a multi-party ministry to govern till the next election. In the United States, many states authorise governors to appoint replacements for senators who die or resign in between their terms. There is no reason why a democratically elected legislature cannot be asked to govern under the broad direction of the governor, or president in case it is the central government that fails to complete its term.
This problem would be less acute in a One Nation, Two Elections scenario, where the maximum period of political uncertainty will be two-and-a-half years. Easing anti-defection laws to enable government formation in case of a premature collapse could be another solution.
This brings me to the best argument for ONOE: improved governance. The problem with the current system of elections is that we have many major polls every single year, each one of them forcing politicians to focus on winning rather than governing. Then, there is the Model Code of Conduct, and restraints on making policy decisions till the elections are over. Frequent polling also precipitates a shower of freebies just before any election anywhere. We are in a race to the bottom in terms of fiscal prudence.
Also read: Global media goes ‘inside’ the RSS & ‘decodes’ one nation one election
Can ONOE work?
ONOE will ensure that elected central and state governments have at least four-and-a-half years to focus on doing the right things instead of frittering away their time worrying about re-election every single year.
This single argument is what tilts the balance in favour of ONOE, possibly with a legislative tweak enabling an election after two-and-a-half years if any government falls midway and no substitute seems likely.
ONOE could work well if power between Centre, state and local bodies were better distributed, with authority being devolved downwards to states and even further to municipal and local bodies. The worry about Central politicians dominating simultaneous election agendas will disappear if the Centre’s control is reduced and distributed downwards. If real power rests with local bodies, ONOE will cease to be a threat. Local bodies are where real democracies will be tested. For this is where the citizen interacts most with the state.
R Jagannathan is editorial director at Swarajya magazine. Views are personal.
(Edited by Zoya Bhatti)