India’s one nation election proposal

India, the world’s largest democracy, is almost always in election mode.

With 28 states, eight union territories and nearly a billion voters, polling stations are a permanent part of the country’s political landscape.

For years, Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has championed the idea of ​​”One Nation, One Election” – a proposal to hold state and federal elections simultaneously every five years.

On Tuesday, India’s law minister introduced a bill in parliament to implement the system, sparking a debate over the power dynamics.

Proponents argue that such an approach would reduce campaign costs, ease the burden on administrative resources and streamline governance.

Former President Ram Nath Kovind, who headed the nine-member committee that recommended the election at the same time last year, called it a “game changer”, citing economists who say it could boost India’s GDP by up to 1.5% .

Critics, however, warn that it could undermine India’s federal structure by concentrating power at the center and weakening state autonomy.

Indian democracy operates at several levels, each with its own electoral cycle.

There are general elections to choose members of parliament, state elections to choose legislators, while village and town councils hold separate votes on local government matters. By-elections fill vacancies caused by the resignation, death, or disqualification of representatives.

These elections are held every five years, but at different times. Now the government wants to synchronize them.

In March, a panel led by Kovind suggested holding state and general elections together in its extensive 18,626-page report. He also recommended holding local government elections within 100 days.

The committee suggested that if the government loses the election, fresh elections will be held, but its mandate will last only until the next simultaneous elections.

Although it may sound stressful, simultaneous polls are not new to India. They have been the norm since the first elections in 1951. until 1967, when political upheaval and the early dissolution of state assemblies led to staggered voting.

Efforts to revive the system have been mooted for decades, with proposals from the Election Commission in 1983, the Law Commission in 1999 and the Niti Aayog, a government think tank, in 2017.

The biggest argument for holding simultaneous elections is to reduce the cost of elections.

According to the Delhi-based non-profit organization Center for Media StudiesIndia spent more than 600 billion rupees ($7.07 billion; £5.54 billion) on the 2019 general election, making it the most expensive in the world at the time.

However, critics argue that the same goal – cutting costs – can backfire.

With 900 million eligible voters, providing enough electronic voting machines, security forces and election officials will require extensive planning and resources.

According to the parliamentary commission in 2015 the report According to the Department of Law and Justice, India already spends 45 billion rupees on general and state elections.

The report mentions that if simultaneous elections are held, Rs 92.84 billion will be required to purchase new Voting and Voter Verification Machines (VVPATs), which issue a piece of paper with the party symbol chosen by the voter. These machines will also need to be replaced every 15 years.

Former Chief Election Commissioner S. Ya. Quraishi raised concerns about high costs. He said they should have been addressed in the Kovind Committee report, especially since cutting election expenses was a key reason behind the proposal.

Holding simultaneous elections requires making formal changes or revisions to individual provisions (or articles) of the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land. Some of these changes must be ratified by at least half of India’s 28 state assemblies.

Although the BJP-led alliance has a simple majority in parliament, it lacks the two-thirds majority required for such amendments.

The Kovind committee studied models from countries like South Africa, Sweden and Indonesia, suggesting best practices for India.

In September, the cabinet approved a proposal to hold simultaneous elections and on Thursday backed two bills supporting the system.

The bills were introduced in Parliament by Federal Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal.

One bill proposes a constitutional amendment to allow for joint federal and state elections, while another seeks to align polling stations in Delhi, Puducherry and Jammu and Kashmir with the general election schedule.

The government has said it is ready to send the bills to a parliamentary committee and consult with political parties to reach a consensus.

The Kovind Committee contacted all Indian parties for feedback and 47 responded: 32 supported simultaneous elections and 15 opposed.

Most supporters were BJP allies or friendly parties, citing time, cost and resource savings.

The BJP claimed that the model code of conduct had cost India “800 days of governance” in the last five years through delays in welfare schemes.

Prime Minister Modi supported simultaneous elections.

“Frequent elections hinder the nation’s progress,” he said in August. “When elections are held every three to six months, every scheme is tied to polls.”

Opposition partiesled by the Congress, called the simultaneous elections “undemocratic” and argued that they undermine the country’s parliamentary system of governance. They say, such a construction will give an unfair advantage to national parties over regional ones.

The parties also recommended greater transparency in the funding process as a better solution to address electoral spending issues.

Follow BBC News India Instagram, youtube, Twitter and Facebook.