One Nation, One Election: Political Divisions and Empirical Realities

Ayaan Siddiqui, St. Xavier’s University Kolkata

One Nation, One Election Political Divisions and Empirical Realities

The One Nation One Election proposal which aims to synchronize voting periods has sparked severe disagreements between every political faction operating in India. The BJP-led government considers this idea a public funding reform to limit expenses but other parties view it as a threat to democratic control systems and federal government authority. The research examines ONOE evidence and discusses legal challenges together with political arguments made by Prime Minister Modi and BJP officials which Rahul Gandhi from the opposition party opposes.

Historical Context of the proposal 

The government conducted simultaneous state assembly and parliamentary elections starting from 1951 through 1967. The governmental system discontinued its plan to hold simultaneous elections after early dissolutions of premiership resulted in the establishment of modern election cycles. The BJP supports constitutional changes to restore ONOE because they predict this reform will deliver three main advantages which include cost reductions and stabilized governments and increased voter engagement. Article 82A establishes equal time limits for both national and state legislative bodies according to the provisions of the Constitution (129th Amendment) Bill of 2024. The second legislation deals with Union Territories. The alterations need two-thirds support from Parliament and approval from half of the state governments since they modify the nature of federalism.

Political Opinions: NDA vs. INDIA

Prime Minister’s view

Prime Minister Narendra Modi recognizes ONOE functions as a key instrument for national development because it would stop election cycles that impede administrative operations. During his January 2025 NCC rally Narendra Modi directly asked for youth backing to establish simultaneous voting which would result in “focused governance without disruptions”. Amit Shah the Home Minister countered opposition party criticism through labeling the initiative as typical opposition to “progressive legislation.”

The BhaJaPa statistical view:

Simultaneous voting will lead to annual financial savings of ₹45,000 crore in 2024 general elections while requiring ₹1 lakh crore ($12 billion). The Kovind Committee predicts that ONOE will produce economic growth of 1.5 percent leading to financial advantages amounting to ₹4.5 lakh crore. The laws Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal reported that 11 million security staff and officials strained electoral resources during each electoral period.

Opposition’s view 

Rahul Gandhi from Congress sees ONOE as a federal power grab since he believes it eliminates local representation according to his view. K.C. Venugopal from Congress Party criticized ONOE through his general-secretary role because of his belief in forming agreements before political debate leads to decisions.debate.

Regional Parties:

During his assessment T.R. Baalu from the DMK party characterized ONOE as an "anti-federalist" policy which reduced state independence. Mamata Banerjee from TMC asserted during her interview that ONOE would eliminate democracy by allowing national parties to dominate rather than supporting local political initiatives. The 2025 resolution from CPI(M) branded ONOE as a fascist tool which would create "centralized unitarian state" development equivalent to Nazi Germany. A group of critics based their assessment on the Basic Structure Doctrine from Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala. Opposition to ONOE exists in the State of Kerala according to their statements. The group defends this doctrine as their weapon against the ONOE initiative that the State of Kerala has launched. Through The State of Kerala (1973) the government obtained an official framework to protect both parliamentary democracy and federalism from power decreases. Manish Tewari evaluated ONOE in his assessment and concluded that the legislation damages the Basic Structure Doctrine due to its effects on state-central relationships.

Statistical Data: Costs, Benefits, and Unanswered Questions

Economic Implications

The Kovind Committee identified annual savings of ₹45000 crore yet no one agrees that this figure makes a substantial impact on India's ₹45 lakh crore annual budget. The Electoral Commission of India presented a budget of ₹466 crore to the government for the 2024 general election. The 1.5% GDP increase prediction receives no support from economists because they believe India maintained a 7% average growth rate despite election cycles. The peer-reviewed research investigation fails to establish clear evidence regarding the connection between election periods and GDP changes.

Voter Behaviour and Political Polarization

In 2025 Bhaswat Prakash examined voter behavior patterns during states that ran their elections simultaneously. The combination of security and economic concerns makes voters switch their support away from local political parties when partial election synchronization takes place. States governed by national parties with popular governments witness their candidates achieve an average vote gain between 12% and 15% because of the Coattail Effect.

Logistical Challenges

The Election Commission predicts that 2.3 million electronic voting machines together with 15 million staff members can successfully distribute votes to all 543 Lok Sabha and 4,123 Assembly seats during one unified election day. Elections held only in the remaining sections of synchronized electoral cycles would probably create zombie governments which reduce public accountability.

Legal and Constitutional Hurdles

Required Amendments

1. Article 83 together with Article 172 of the Constitution set five-year terms that bar the government from unilaterally dissolving the assembly. 

2. Through Article 356 power the government controlled the application of President's Rule to prevent midterm election interruptions. 

3. The Representation of the People Act 1951 needs surgical changes to its nomination process rules and electoral campaign framework. 

Federalism Concerns

The Supreme Court’s emphasis on federalism in S.R. Bommai v. The Supreme Court decision in Union of India (1994) established barriers which prevented the implementation of ONOE according to its original design. Two Indian states namely Tamil Nadu and West Bengal created legal opposition against synchronized national elections because this system reduces their constitutional power.

Recent Developments and the Road Ahead

According to Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman the ONOE implementation will begin in 2034 since the program requires all states to agree to participate. The BJP conducts public outreach activities to counter negative attacks from opposition forces who have planned joint legal opposition against ONOE.

Conclusion

India faces a national problem to achieve operational efficiency and cultural respect as the ONOE debate continues. The BJP maintains executive control of the government with their integrated administration system yet opposition forces understand the problems caused by strong centralized power and diminished democratic authority. The survival of ONOE faces significant obstacles because evidence about cost reductions remains unclear and legal challenges to its operation continue with strength. Prime Minister Modi's legacy-making reforms require solving political disputes which correspond to India's complex democratic system. Future Indian institutions will prove their ability to unite opposing perspectives without changing their federal system which enables diverse characteristics to thrive. Through ONOE the Indian government displays ongoing tensions that exist between federal authority structures and centralized administrative policies.

Ayaan Siddiqui, St. Xavier’s University Kolkata