Explained: Why One Nation, One Election is seen as anti-federal

Almost three months after accepting the recommendations of the high-level committee chaired by former President Ram Nath Kovind on holding simultaneous polls, the Union Cabinet on Thursday (December 12) approved two Bills — one to conduct elections for the Lok Sabha and all state assemblies together, and another to align elections for assemblies in Delhi and other Union Territories.

The two Bills are expected to be introduced in the ongoing Parliament session. The government will eventually refer the bill to the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) for further scrutiny, according to reports. Notably, the Union government has not confirmed the timeline for implementation — whether simultaneous polls will begin in 2029 or 2034.

Apart from the JPC, the ruling BJP will also conduct an awareness campaign over the idea of ‘one nation, one election’.

Also read: ‘One Nation, One Election’ Bill likely to be tabled in Parliament next week

Though the BJP and its allies are backing the move, many Opposition parties, including the Congress, are against the idea of unified elections, contending that it is a threat to regional parties, federalism and India’s diversity.

What is One Nation, One Election?

The proposal seeks to synchronise elections in India. The idea includes holding simultaneous elections for the Lok Sabha and all state legislative Assemblies across India. Under this model, elections would be conducted either on a single day or within a tightly defined timeframe.

Presently, elections are held separately for the Lok Sabha and individual state Assemblies, which leads to frequent elections and the resultant enforcement of the model code of conduct.

Post-Independence India conducted simultaneous general and state elections until 1967. The premature dissolution of some state Assemblies disrupted this practice, leading to the staggered electoral schedule in place today.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi has always advocated for a return to simultaneous elections, emphasising its potential to reduce public expenditure and minimise disruptions caused by the recurrent enforcement of the model code of conduct.

Also read: One nation, one election is impossible: Kharge to PM Modi

Why is it seen as anti-federal by its critics?

The critics contend that One Nation, One Election poses a threat to India’s federal structure, where states operate with significant autonomy. The argument is that each state has its own distinct political, economic, and social realities, and state governments need the flexibility to respond to these local dynamics. Aligning state elections with national elections could undermine the capacity of state governments to prioritise regional issues and allow national narratives to eclipse local concerns, it is felt.

Simultaneous elections could shift the political discourse towards a centralised, uniform agenda, reducing the diversity of political representation in a country as large and varied as India, they argue.

The Congress has argued that this approach undermines federalism and risks shifting India toward a presidential election model. The party also says parliamentary and state elections address different voter concerns, and this push prioritises Central issues over local ones.

What have the chief ministers said?

 Kerala Chief Minister and CPI(M) leader Pinarayi Vijayan said there is “a hidden agenda to weaken India’s federal system and grant overwhelming power to the Central government”. “The Sangh Parivar is covertly working to transform India’s electoral politics into a presidential-style system. The ‘One Election’ slogan undermines the diversity of Indian parliamentary democracy… pushing for simultaneous elections without regard for state-specific political dynamics, risks imposing the central government’s will and overturning electoral mandates — an attack on democracy itself,” he said.

The Kerala Assembly even passed a resolution against the move, saying “The proposal is undemocratic. We see it as a concerted attempt to damage the country’s social, cultural and political diversities. When there are simpler ways to reduce expenses and ensure smoother governance, the proposal is aimed at destroying the federal structure which is at the core of the Constitution, challenging the rights of the people and hampering the rights of state assemblies and local self-governments”.

Also read: One Nation One Election: Let it be contested in political arena; no need to summon red herrings

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin has described the proposal as an “impractical proposition that ignores the complexities of India's diverse electoral system and undermines federalism”. He noted that it is logistically unfeasible given the vast differences in election cycles, regional issues, and governance priorities.

“The proposal is not only against the federal structure but also practically impossible to implement. The fact that such an important proposal is being rushed through without any consultation with Opposition parties reveals the malicious intent of the Modi government,” said Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah.

“I have consistently opposed ‘one nation, one election’ because it is a solution in search of a problem. It destroys federalism and compromises democracy, which are part of the basic structure of the Constitution,” said AIMIM president and MP Asaduddin Owaisi.

How is the government selling the idea? 

The government argues that India is in a perpetual poll campaign mode as the country has had either a state or a national election every year for the last 37 years.

This is apparently a drain on the financial exchequer and wastes resources, efforts and time of the government and political parties. Those at the helm also argue that an election held constantly in some part of the country with a ‘model code of conduct’ distracts from governance and leads to policy paralysis.

Among the other advantages claimed were that it makes the electoral process easier, apart from cutting down the cost of conducting elections. The government said it will also ease the burden on administrative and security forces who otherwise are engaged multiple times in election duties. Simultaneous elections, according to the Law Commission, will also increase voter turnout because it will be easier for people to cast many ballots at once.

Also read: One Nation, One Election: Modi govt's diversionary tactic after diminished mandate

Is the current system really bad?

According to critics of One Nation, One Election, to say that the elections bringing governance to a halt is a foolish argument. An election in one of India’s states is not an election for the country as a whole, so there is no question of "frequent polls". They argue that this whole idea conflates states and the Centre.

They also contend that constant elections are neither the problem for the country nor the states. It is instead a problem for the ‘national’ parties if they feel distracted by state elections because they have a centralised structure where a few leaders are the campaigners-in-chief for the whole country.

They also reject the argument of cost-cutting by holding simultaneous elections to the Lok Sabha and the state Assemblies. Various estimates by the Election Commission and NITI Aayog show that the One Nation, One Election may at most save Rs 5 per voter per year. They contend that the country could save that money, and much more, if all political parties agree to not indulge in competitive populism.