Contentious ONOE

Congress has expressed serious concerns about the plan by the Modi government to effect One Nation, One Election (ONOE) by 2029. ONOE does not mean “one election and then no election” The real question is whether India can synchronise elections without weakening the federal and parliamentary principles that make governments accountable. ONOE means holding elections to the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies at the same time, broadly restoring the cycle India followed from 1951 to 1967. The government argues that frequent elections consume money and manpower, repeatedly impose the Model Code of Conduct and distract governments from governance. The fear that ONOE would create a government that cannot be removed is misplaced. Under the proposed framework, if a government loses its majority, it can still fall. Indeed, the draft specifically provides that if the Lok Sabha or an Assembly is dissolved prematurely, a fresh election would be held. Then the elected government would serve only the remainder of the existing electoral cycle, not a fresh five-year term. Thus, the parliamentary principle of majority rule is not formally abolished. The more serious concern is different. Simultaneous national and state elections could encourage voters to treat them as one political contest. A strong national campaign could overshadow state issues and regional parties. India’s federal character could consequently be weakened even though the Constitution continues to provide for separate governments. Also ONOE cannot simply be implemented by executive decision. The Constitution (129th Amendment) Bill, 2024, introducing Article 82A and changing provisions concerning the tenure of legislatures, is still before a Joint Parliamentary Committee. The companion legislation covers Union Territory Assemblies.The constitutional amendment requires a special majority in both Houses-a majority of the total membership and two-thirds of members present and voting. Whether additional ratification by at least half the states is constitutionally necessary remains contested among experts. The Kovind committee argued that state ratification would not be required for the Lok Sabha-Assembly phase, while other constitutional scholars take a different view. This is where the numbers become crucial. The NDA has a parliamentary majority, but it does not possess the comfortable two-thirds strength required for a constitutional amendment. The government has therefore had to seek support beyond its natural allies. The political arithmetic remains a substantial obstacle. There is also a timing problem. The original legislative design envisaged the first simultaneous election around 2034, not 2026. Recent reports suggest the NDA is examining whether elections in 2029 could be brought forward for as many as 22 states and Union Territories, but this would require substantial political and legal manoeuvring. That uncertainty may ultimately be ONOE’s greatest weakness. The government wants a historic electoral reform, but constitutional amendments require consensus beyond the ruling coalition. Opposition parties are strongly resisting it, and even within the current debate there is disagreement over whether 2029 is legally workable. The objective of reducing election fatigue is worthy. But democracy is not merely about reducing the number of elections; it is about preserving the voter’s ability to hold governments accountable. One Nation, One Election can be a legitimate reform only if it remains One Nation, Multiple Choices-not One Nation, One Permanent Government. Until the government can build that constitutional and political consensus, ONOE is more an aspiration than an imminent reality.