Former President Ram Nath Kovind has recently defended the concept of “One Nation, One Election,” asserting that simultaneous elections were originally envisioned by India’s constitutional architects.
Speaking at the 30th Lal Bahadur Shastri Memorial Lecture, he highlighted that during the initial years of the republic, Lok Sabha and state assembly elections were held simultaneously. This practice continued for the first four electoral cycles until it was disrupted in 1968.
Kovind, who previously chaired the high-level committee that advocated for the “One Nation, One Election” policy, reflected on how the disruption of synchronised elections is often overlooked.
He noted that while some groups label simultaneous elections as undemocratic or unconstitutional, the historical context suggests otherwise. The former President emphasised that the idea of concurrent elections aligns with the vision laid out by the nation’s founding fathers.
He pointed out that the break from this practice occurred due to political decisions, specifically mentioning that several state assemblies were prematurely dissolved by the then Union Government under Article 356. This disruption in electoral cycles has led to debates on the validity of simultaneous elections today.
Kovind further elaborated on the consultation process for the policy, revealing that out of 47 political parties involved, 32 supported the idea of simultaneous elections while only 15 opposed it. Interestingly, many of these opposing parties had previously endorsed the concept. This reflects a complex political landscape where opinions on electoral reforms can shift based on current contexts and political dynamics.
The concept gained renewed attention when the Union Cabinet approved the government’s proposal for “One Nation, One Election” on September 18. This initiative aims to synchronise Lok Sabha and Assembly elections, along with urban body and panchayat polls, within a specified timeframe of 100 days.
The move is seen as an effort to streamline the electoral process and reduce the frequency of elections, which can be a burden on the administrative machinery and the electorate.
Kovind’s comments have reignited discussions on the practicality and implications of this policy. Proponents argue that simultaneous elections could lead to more stable governance, allowing political parties to focus on long-term planning rather than continuous campaigning. This approach is also believed to enhance voter engagement and turnout by providing a more consolidated electoral schedule.
Opponents, however, raise concerns about the potential impact on regional issues and the democratic process. They argue that simultaneous elections might dilute local voices and issues, overshadowing them in favour of national narratives. The fear is that local elections, which often address specific community needs, could become secondary in a broader electoral agenda.
Follow us
