One Nation, One Election in India | UPSC

Overview

The video explains the proposed “One Nation, One Election” concept in India and assesses whether it is feasible, what benefits it could bring, and what constitutional and political challenges it may face.

What “One Nation, One Election” means

• A special parliamentary committee (set up under President Ram Nath Kovind) has been tasked with exploring whether elections for the Centre and all state assemblies can be held together.

• The idea is that voters in each state would vote for both:

  • the state assembly, and
  • the central government within the same overall election window (described as spanning several months, not necessarily a single day).

• The proposal discussed excludes local body elections (e.g., those under the 73rd/74th constitutional amendments). The video notes that even in other countries, local elections may follow different timing.

Has India done this before?

• The video argues India previously held simultaneous Lok Sabha and state elections in the early post-independence period, citing elections in:
  • 1952
  • 1957
  • 1962
  • 1967
• It claims that synchronization later broke due to the constitutional use of President’s Rule under Article 356, when state governments fell and elections were held out of sync with general elections.
• Examples mentioned include multiple states where President’s Rule was imposed in the late 1960s, which the speaker says led to the loss of alignment between central and state election cycles.

Key feasibility and legal hurdles

The video suggests that simultaneous elections would require more than administrative changes:

• The government may need constitutional amendments.
• It specifically mentions that amendments would be required for multiple articles related to:
  • the timing of Lok Sabha
  • the timing of state legislatures
  • the operation of President’s Rule
• Articles highlighted for possible amendment include:
  • Article 83
  • Article 85
  • Article 172
  • Article 173
  • Article 356
• These changes are expected to be carried out through the process in Article 368.

Operationally, the video highlights a major challenge:

• Whether states would have to end terms early or have terms extended to realign election schedules—especially since states currently have different end dates for their legislative terms.

Claimed positives

The video presents several potential benefits:

• Reduced cost and frequency of elections
  • Elections are described as extremely expensive (citing a Hindustan Times estimate for 2019 general elections of about ₹60,000 crore).
  • Fewer election cycles could reduce spending by political parties and election administration.
• Less disruption from the Model Code of Conduct
  • Since the Model Code of Conduct typically activates close to election dates, fewer elections could mean fewer periods when governance is constrained.
• Potential reduction in polarizing campaigning
  • The speaker argues frequent elections can intensify high-heat political rhetoric, so spreading elections less often could ease social tensions.
• Less short-term, populist politics
  • Fewer cycles could reduce incentives for parties to make frequent short-term promises.

Major negatives / risks

The video also emphasizes significant concerns:

• Democratic accountability concerns
  • It frames India as largely a procedural democracy—citizens rule through elected representatives.
  • With fewer elections, citizens have fewer opportunities to test and replace representatives.
  • The video notes that India has no recall mechanism.
• Mismatch when state governments are unstable or under President’s Rule
  • A simultaneous system would need a workable approach for states where President’s Rule is involved, because it may not align cleanly with a national election schedule.
• Government formation and parliamentary/state majorities
  • Synchronizing elections could require disrupting (removing or extending) governments that do not naturally end together.
• Regional issues could be overshadowed
  • Merging state contests with major national elections could reduce attention to state-level issues compared to central themes.
• Consensus-building challenge
  • The video claims constitutional change would require major agreement.
  • It notes that opposition is described as united against the proposal, implying strong political resistance.

International comparison and supporting views

• The video references Sweden, arguing that multi-level elections occur on a regular schedule (the second Sunday of September), suggesting such systems can work elsewhere.
• It also claims India’s Election Commission and related bodies have shown openness:
  • Mentions the Election Commission revisiting simultaneous elections after 1967, and a recommendation around 1983.
  • References 1999 and NITI Aayog work (including around 2016) suggesting simultaneity is possible.
  • Cites Chief Election Commissioner Sushil Chandra’s 2022 comments stating the Election Commission is prepared to conduct simultaneous elections.

Overall conclusion of the video

The speaker presents the proposal as administratively possible in principle, with support from election-related bodies, but stresses that the biggest obstacles are:

• constitutional amendments
• managing states’ different election timelines
• political consensus and accountability concerns

Presenters / contributors (as mentioned)

• Ram Nath Kovind (mentioned as President; committee chairperson)
• Sushil Chandra (mentioned as Election Commissioner / CEC in 2022)
• NITI Aayog (mentioned as a body that assessed feasibility)
• Election Commission of India (mentioned as supportive/ready in prior statements)
• Dr. Commission (mentioned; not clearly identified by name in the subtitles)
• The “present government” / Prime Minister (mentioned; not named in the subtitles)
• Opposition parties (mentioned; not named in the subtitles)