Abstract

The concept of “One Nation, One Election” (ONOE) seeks to streamline India’s electoral process by conducting simultaneous elections for the Lok Sabha, State Legislative Assemblies, and local bodies. This policy, while conceptually appealing due to its administrative and economic benefits, raises critical debates around its constitutional implications and practical feasibility. Historically, simultaneous elections were the norm in India until political instability in the late 1960s disrupted this synchronization. Recent legislative developments, including the introduction of the Constitution (One Hundred and Twenty-Ninth Amendment) Bill, 2024, signal the government’s intention to institutionalize this model. Advocates argue that ONOE can significantly reduce electoral costs, minimize policy paralysis caused by frequent impositions of the Model Code of Conduct, and enhance voter participation. Economically, the policy could foster stability, with projections suggesting a potential GDP growth boost. However, critics highlight its challenges, including risks to free and fair elections, centralization of power undermining federalism, and marginalization of regional parties in a consolidated electoral framework.The policy necessitates constitutional amendments to Articles 83, 172, 85, 356, and others to align election cycles and address contingencies like government dissolution. Furthermore, creating a unified electoral roll and synchronizing electoral machinery across levels of governance present substantial logistical hurdles. Globally, simultaneous elections are practiced in countries like South Africa, Sweden, Indonesia and Germany, each with distinct operational models. These examples offer valuable insights but underscore the need for meticulous planning and adaptation to India’s unique democratic and federal structure.While ONOE promises a transformative approach to electoral reforms, its successful implementation depends on achieving a robust constitutional framework, political consensus, and safeguarding democratic principles. The proposal remains a double-edged sword—poised between efficiency and the risk of eroding India’s electoral ethos.

Keywords