One nation, One Election refers to the idea of holding elections for the central parliament (Lok Sabha) and state legislatures (State Legislative Assemblies) simultaneously. Simply, all Indians can vote for their Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of Legislative Assembly (MLA) in a single election.
In India the legislative wing has a parliamentary system is divided into 3 levels:
The national level or Union Parliament, headed by the Prime Minister;
The state level or State Legislature of each states, headed by their individual Chief Ministers; and
The local level or Local Bodies & Panchayats, which include municipalities, municipal corporations, gram panchayats and so on.
Elections for these generally occur at separate time frames. E.g. The last Lok Sabha elections were held in 2024 nationwide. Whereas state elections were held at different times for different states (2020-2024). The local bodies elections occur at different points of time as well. One nation, one election aims to unify the national and state level elections in a singular time frame.
The concept of One Nation One Election is not new in India. In fact, in the early years of the post independence era there was a single election system in India. The first general election in 1951-1952 was conducted concurrently for both State Legislative Assemblies and the Lok Sabha. This period continued till 1967 where citizens voted once every five years, and governments at both levels functioned with matching terms.
However, this synchronicity was broken in the later part of the 1960s due to premature dissolution of some state legislative assemblies. Then there were early dissolution and term extension due to declaration of Emergency for consecutive terms of Lok Sabha in 1970 and 1976 respectively. These events made it so that the two levels of election fell out of sync and since then India has moved into a system of staggered elections, with polls happening somewhere in the country almost every year.
Proponents of Single Election System India argue that returning to One Nation, One Election would bring the nation back to its original democratic rhythm. Critics on the other hand err on the side of caution, citing political, logistical and constitutional challenges.
Post independence simultaneous elections were normal. The emergent nation had just formulated the structures and these synchronous systems were ideal and efficient. However, real world scenarios shifted the election cycles between state and center. The idea of one nation, one election has gathered rising interest in recent times. The main reasons are the rising cost of elections, frequent disruption of governance due to the Model Code of Conduct and the heavy administrative burden on the Election Commission, police and government.
Law Commission of India: The Law Commission of India as examined this issue multiple time:
The 170th Report (1999) first raised the possibility of restoring simultaneous elections.
The 255th Report (2015) pointed out that the idea was “feasible but required constitutional amendments” to Articles 83, 85, 172, 174, and 356.
In 2018, the Commission released a detailed discussion paper outlining possible models for phased synchronization.
NITI Aayog: Similarly in the NITI Aayog’s 2017 Discussion Papers, authors Bibek Debroy and Kishore Desai, argued that a unified election cycle could reduce costs, enhance governance stability and improve efficiency.
High Level Committee: Most recently, in September 2023, the Government of India set up a High Level Committee, chaired by the former president Ram Nath Kovind to study the feasibility of implementing One Nation, One Election.
This committee had government ministers, representatives of major political parties and other experts in matters of politics, constitutions, law and governance.
They had focused on the need for implementing the idea in the modern context, what its benefits could be and how to follow a legal structure for effective integration and making it constitutionally sound.
This renewed push has intensified political and academic debate. Supporters state it will increase efficiency and result in substantial cost benefits. Critics raise concerns over erosion of federal structure and democratic diversity with the center dominating the state. Let’s take a look at the pros and cons of One Nation, One Election
Supporters of the idea cite several benefits as well as the initial model of election being based on a single election system. Some of the hypothesised pros are as follows:
India is the most populated democracy in the world and conducting elections is expensive. In 2024 Lok Sabha elections an estimated ₹1.35 lakh crore was spent which was a marked increase from the ₹55,000-60,000 crores spent in the 2019 elections (figures include expenditures of both the ECI and the political parties). Frequent state elections multiply the cost. A single election system could potentially save thousands of crores, which could then be redirected to development elsewhere.
Conducting elections requires a concerted effort by multiple governmental agencies, police and paramilitary forces, as well as taking teachers, bureaucrats and other government employees away from their regular work. Holding elections once in five years would reduce the recurring diversion of human resources, allowing governments to focus on governance.
Model Code of Conduct (MCC) is a set of rules enforced by the Election Commission of India (ECI) for the political parties and candidates with respect to election campaigning, speeches, general conduct, etc. It is imposed during elections and thus restricts normal functioning of government with respect to implementing policy changes and introducing new schemes. Since India faces some form of election almost every year, policymaking often suffers. A unified cycle would reduce governance paralysis and encourage long-term planning.
Voting in multiple elections year after year can result in voter fatigue, where people become less likely to vote in every election. Studies have shown that concurrent elections positively affect the voter turnout matrices especially if they think their single vote will matter more being given at multiple levels. This is particularly true for rural areas which constitute the majority of the nation’s population.
A single electoral cycle may lead to more stable coalition governments and reduce the frequency of political opportunism tied to mid-term polls. Moreover elections are polarising events that might perpetuate caste, religious and communal issues if conducted frequently. Single elections will help curb these effects.
The Parliamentary Standing committee on Personnel, Public grievances, Law and justice noted that “Frequent elections lead to disruption of normal public life”. Political rallies cause traffic congestions, elected representatives focus their attention towards campaigning rather than administration and the whole system grinds at a cautious pace.
In short, the pros of One Nation, One Election is efficiency, savings and governance stability.
While the idea of a single election system in India seems efficient on paper, critics warn of several constitutional, logistical, and political challenges.
According to the Law Commission of India report, 2018 Implementing One Nation, One Election would require major amendments to the Constitution, including Articles 83, 85, 172, 174, and 356. These provisions deal with the terms of Parliament and State Assemblies, as well as emergency powers ensuring the concurrent election stays synchronised and does not de-sync due to early dissolution, emergency situations or any such manner while remaining within the purview of the constitution. Any amendment would need broad political consensus across parties and states, which is difficult in India’s federal system.
Federal and unitary systems of government are the degree to which power is saturated within the State and the Union government. As of now elections and our constitutional structure gives us a balance between the two. Singular elections might lead to power being amassed in the center and thereby going against the federalistic and democratic nature of our constitution.
Conducting Lok Sabha elections is a major hassle, even without the added pressure of conducting state elections alongside them. India has over 979 million eligible voters and requires more than 1.7 million electronic voting machines (EVMs) for Lok Sabha elections alone. Simultaneous voting will require even more investment into infrastructure, human resources, security and transportation making logistics challenging and complex.
One major concern in implementing a single election system is that national interests will take priority and local issues could be neglected. Elections are a major event where representatives and political parties are held accountable in front of the public. They need to win the trust of the people to win the elections. Local issues are given more prominence when elections don’t coincide with national ones as when they do major issues such as national defence, international relations, trade, finances take precedence.
Another concern is voter behaviour. When elections are conducted for multiple levels simultaneously there is a higher likelihood for sweep at all levels. Voters tend to vote for a single party candidate at all levels irrelevant of the candidate and their worthiness at their individual levels.
One concern raised by critics of One Nation, One Election is the fact that staggered elections means more regular interaction between political parties and the people. With the single election systems, elected candidates might visit their constituencies once in 5 years, only before the time of the election.
Simultaneous elections may favor larger national parties, since they can run integrated campaigns. This will mean that only a few established political parties that employ huge budgets for election campaigning would get a n upper hand. Smaller regional parties, which focus on local identity and issues, could be sidelined, leading to a less representative democracy.
In essence, while the pros and cons of One Nation, One Election are both strong, the cons raise questions about feasibility, fairness and the future of federalism in India.
The idea of synchronised elections is not unique to India. Several other countries have similar systems where elections for multiple levels of legislature and government are conducted simultaneously:
South Africa conducts national and provincial elections simultaneously every five years. This ensures voter convenience and cost savings. However, local government elections are held separately, which allows a space for grassroots issues to be addressed independently.
Sweden holds elections for its parliament (Riksdag), county councils, and municipal councils on the same day every four years. The system has been praised for its efficiency and voter participation rates, but Sweden’s relatively smaller size and centralized governance make it easier to implement compared to India.
Indonesia, the world’s third-largest democracy, experimented with simultaneous elections in 2019, combining presidential, parliamentary, and regional elections. While voter turnout was high, the process was logistically overwhelming and over 500 election workers reportedly died from exhaustion and stress during the process. This shows the risks of scaling up simultaneous polls in a vast democracy.
Countries with simultaneous elections usually have smaller populations or strong centralized systems, unlike India’s complex federal structure.
Larger democracies like the US retain staggered elections to balance federal autonomy with electoral convenience.
Indonesia’s case highlights the logistical and human costs of large-scale synchronized polls.
Thus, while global models offer insights, India’s scale, diversity, and federal design make implementation uniquely challenging.
The concept of One Nation, One Election shows an important ideal that the world’s largest democracy possesses, the ability to evolve with the times. Our constitution itself renders a flexible nature to itself through the process of amendment, showing an insight that nothing is perfect forever.
On one hand the promise of cost savings, efficiency, reduced disruption and greater service to the public presents an enticing proposal. While on the other hand dilution of federalism, logistical hurdles and the overshadowing of regional voices pose a great question, will One Nation, One Election really be for the better?
The Law Commission of India and the High-Level Committee led by former President Ram Nath Kovind have recommended further exploration of the idea, but even they emphasize the need for constitutional amendments, consensus among states and a phased approach. A possible middle ground could be clustered elections, i.e. aligning polls of certain states with Lok Sabha elections while allowing others to follow later cycles. This could strike a balance between efficiency and federalism.
Ultimately, the success of One Nation, One Election will depend on whether India can reform its electoral process without compromising its democratic pluralism. The debate, therefore, is less about saving money and more about preserving the spirit of India’s democracy.