The ONOE Bill Stirs Debate in Parliament
The controversial One Nation, One Election (ONOE) Bill, formally the Constitution (One Hundred and Twenty-Ninth Amendment) Bill, 2024, was introduced in the Monsoon Session of Parliament amid a scant monsoon and then referred to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC). This move, rare for a government known for fast-tracking legislation, signals an attempt to build consensus on a bill that critics say lacks an agreed purpose. The JPC considered the Ram Nath Kovind Committee report, which recommended simultaneous elections, but the outcome remains unknown. Ashok Lavasa, a former Election Commissioner, argues that the bill's premises are flawed and that it threatens the spirit of electoral democracy.
Constituent Assembly Wisdom Ignored
The framers of the Indian Constitution did not mandate simultaneous elections. They anticipated that initial simultaneity would be disrupted by political dynamics. As Shibban Lal Saxena, a Congress leader in the Constituent Assembly, stated, "Elections will probably be almost always going on in some province or the other" due to no-confidence motions leading to dissolution of legislatures. The geographical, economic, and socio-cultural diversity of India inevitably creates divergent electoral cycles. The quest for uniformity, Lavasa contends, is an artificial regimentation that prioritizes managerial convenience over federal autonomy.
TT Krishnamachari, another Constituent Assembly member, famously said, "Democracy is an expensive affair. If this House wants a democracy, it has got to go through the expenses of an election, once, twice, thrice, as many times as it is necessary." This counters the bill's justification that elections are too expensive and time-consuming.
Unsubstantiated Claims of Cost and Disruption
The ONOE Bill argues that elections are costly and impose a Model Code of Conduct (MCC) that halts development. However, the Election Commission of India (ECI) does not maintain consolidated accounts of election expenditure, and the government has not provided data on claimed savings. Lavasa notes that Section 14 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 already allows the ECI to bunch elections without curbing the term of elected houses. The MCC, he explains, only prohibits actions that give unfair advantage to the ruling party, contrary to claims of dysfunctionality. The ECI should release data on denied permissions to justify the bill's assertions.
Accountability and Federalism at Risk
Simultaneous elections would reduce the frequency of interaction between voters and elected leaders, converting accountability into a five-year ritual. Lavasa emphasizes that elections are the only time when power shifts to electors, and decreasing their frequency would entrench political supremacy. The bill does not address real electoral ills: political finance, black money, vicious campaigning, or violations of the MCC. Instead, it offers a remedy that treats symptoms while ignoring root causes.
The bill proposes that mid-term elections, if required, would be for a curtailed period to align with the cycle. This undermines the principle that legislatures should serve full terms unless dissolved. Moreover, the diversity of India means that regional issues require separate electoral mandates, and simultaneous elections could suppress local voices.
Call for Genuine Reforms
Lavasa urges political parties to lead by example: refrain from pre-election public spending, strictly adhere to the MCC, curb black money in elections, and pursue long-pending electoral reforms. The ECI should place its recommendations on the ONOE Bill in the public domain, and the JPC should consider them before endorsing a remedy that only suits the government's agenda. The focus should be on improving the electoral process, not merely synchronizing dates.
