The idea of “One Nation, One Election” (ONOE) has once again captured the attention of India’s political and civic discourse. At the heart of this idea lies a vision of electoral reform that seeks to synchronize elections for the Lok Sabha and all State Legislative Assemblies. Proponents of ONOE argue that holding simultaneous elections would streamline governance, reduce the cost of electoral processes, and minimize the disruptions caused by frequent polls. While the concept is not new, its re-emergence in recent political discussions has reignited debates around its feasibility, impact on federalism, and implications for Indian democracy.
India did, in fact, begin its democratic journey with synchronized elections. From 1951–52 until 1967, elections to both the Parliament and state assemblies were conducted simultaneously. This alignment was disrupted due to the premature dissolution of some state governments and political instability, particularly during the late 1960s and 1970s. Since then, staggered elections have become the norm, creating a near-continuous cycle of electioneering somewhere in the country. This constant state of electoral preparation and campaigning is often blamed for impeding consistent policy-making and governance.
The ONOE envisions that elections at both national and state level elections should be conducted at a defined time frame. The idea is to reduce the financial and administrative burden of conducting elections every few months and to allow elected leaders more uninterrupted time to focus on governance. Scholars and experts are of the view that fewer elections, the model code of conduct would be enforced less frequently, enabling smoother implementation of development programs and reducing populist decision-making tied to upcoming polls.
In recent months, the Union Government has made a renewed push to implement this idea. In September 2024, the Union Cabinet gave its nod to the ONOE proposal, citing benefits like reduced costs, more efficient governance, and better coordination between state and central governments. Union Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw emphasized that a government-appointed committee had strongly backed the proposal, highlighting its alignment with the aspirations of India’s youth and its potential to foster transparency and enforcing greater governability.
While hard numbers are difficult to standardize, a report by a high-level committee chaired by former President Ram Nath Kovind projected that implementing ONOE could lead to a one-time boost in real GDP growth of 1.5 percentage points. In the fiscal year 2024, this figure translated to roughly ₹4.5 lakh crore—almost half of India’s annual health budget and one-third of its spending on education. These figures underscore the enormous financial cost of frequent elections and the savings potential of a synchronized electoral schedule.
Globally, several democracies have adopted or experimented with similar models. In Sweden, for instance, elections for all levels of government are held on a single day every four years. Belgium aligns its federal and regional elections with European Union parliamentary elections. These examples provide comparative perspectives and suggest that such synchronization is both possible and functionally viable in diverse democratic systems.
Despite the strong economic and administrative arguments, the path to ONOE is far from straightforward. In December 2024, the bill proposing simultaneous elections failed to secure the required two-thirds majority in the Lok Sabha. Although it received 269 votes in favor and 198 against, it fell short of the threshold necessary for a constitutional amendment. Critics from various political quarters raised concerns that ONOE could undermine the federal nature of India’s Constitution, centralizing power in the hands of national parties and sidelining regional voices.
One of the key concerns voiced by opposition parties and constitutional experts is that synchronized elections could dilute the autonomy of state governments. There is apprehension that linking state elections to national ones could lead to national issues overshadowing regional concerns, thereby diminishing the influence of state-based parties and altering the dynamics of Indian federalism. This, critics argue, could subtly nudge India toward a quasi-presidential system, potentially compromising the pluralistic and decentralized structure enshrined in the Constitution.
Logistical challenges also loom large. Coordinating elections for 543 Lok Sabha constituencies and nearly 4,120 State Assembly seats in one or two phases would be an unprecedented administrative exercise. The deployment of adequate security forces, procurement and distribution of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs), and training of election personnel would need detailed planning and enormous resources. The Election Commission of India has expressed its willingness to oversee such a process but has emphasized the need for proper legal and infrastructural support. However, India’s experience with leading Covid Vaccine and dealing with other several prominent issues at one time, the possibility of One Nation One Election seems feasible as well as possible.
To make it a success, awareness among voters would be anticipated but that would mature the democratic understanding of the public at large. Critics have raised that simultaneous elections could lead to a nationalization of electoral discourse, with voters prioritizing national over local issues when casting their ballots. But such criticism stands nowhere as the maturity of voters and their electoral behavior has transcended beyond the national and regional issue and concentrating on the developmental issues as ignited by Modi government. It has been also observed that with time voters have shown much maturity and recently rejected the government of freebies for government working to strengthen the nation and lead the youth in the path of Viksit Bharat.
However, certain preparations as recommended amidst launching the ONOE. To ensure the success of ONOE, a comprehensive voter education campaign will be essential. Efforts must focus on engaging marginalized communities, increasing youth participation, and bridging the awareness gap between urban and rural voters. If well-executed, such a campaign could not only support the ONOE initiative but also strengthen India’s democratic fabric by fostering greater civic participation.
In many senses, the ONOE proposal offers a bold reimagining of India’s electoral architecture. It promises to enhance administrative efficiency, reduce costs, and promote policy continuity and reject political corruption and politics of freebies. However, its implementation will require navigating a complex web of constitutional, political, and logistical concerns. For ONOE to succeed, it must deliver on its promises of reform to strengthen the phenomenology of democracy in the emerging times.
Dr. Sanjeev Kumar is Assistant Professor, SPM College, University of Delhi & Director, SHD Research Foundation and Dr. Neha Sinha is Assistant Professor, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar University, Delhi & Fellow, CGPAS, SHD Research Foundation. Views are personal.
