Patna, Dec 15 (IANS) The debate over the contentious proposal of ‘One Nation, One Election’ has sparked contrasting opinions across India’s political spectrum.
While the ruling NDA supports the initiative, opposition parties such as the RJD and Congress have voiced strong dissent.
Meanwhile, Prashant Kishor, leader of the Jan Suraaj Party, has taken a nuanced stance, supporting the concept but raising concerns about its implementation.
Kishor described ‘One Nation, One Election’ as a step that could bring substantial benefits to the country.
He argued that synchronising elections would prevent the government from being in a perpetual “election mode,” thus saving time and public funds.
“About one-fourth of the population votes every year, which disrupts governance and development but such a transformative change cannot occur overnight. I would recommend a phased implementation process spanning four to five years to ensure a smooth transition,” Kishor said.
He also highlighted the importance of preserving democratic integrity, urging that the law must not be used to target or harm any particular class or community.
“Consolidated elections could reduce financial and administrative burdens. Fewer elections might allow governments to focus more on long-term governance and policymaking, however, synchronising the terms of Central and state governments requires constitutional amendments and may disrupt the democratic process,” he said.
Opposition parties argue that it could centralise power and undermine the federal structure of governance.
The opposition leaders in Bihar, particularly from the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) and Congress, are raising strong objections to it. They have expressed scepticism over the intent behind the proposal and highlighted several challenges, including its potential impact on smaller parties and India’s federal structure.
RJD leaders, like spokesperson Chittranjan Gagan, questioned why similar policies are not being implemented for education, healthcare, and public facilities.
“They argued that ‘One Nation, One Education’ or ‘One Nation, One Healthcare’, or other facilities should take precedence over simultaneous elections to address critical inequalities in society,” Gagan said.
“The proposal could be a step toward centralising power and potentially finishing smaller regional parties. It could pave the way for constitutional changes that undermine India’s federal character, where states have the autonomy to govern their affairs,” he added.
Congress MLC Madan Mohan Jha raised practical concerns, citing the scale of India’s population (140 crore) and the logistical hurdles of conducting simultaneous elections.
“The Election Commission struggles with managing elections in four states simultaneously, making nationwide elections a daunting task,” Jha said.
The Congress leader dismissed the idea as a “populist slogan” designed to garner attention without a realistic roadmap for implementation.
The BJP has strongly defended the initiative, emphasising its benefits.
BJP spokesperson Arvind Kumar Singh highlighted that simultaneous elections were the norm in India until 1967, and the shift to staggered elections disrupted governance.
“Synchronised elections will save time and resources, ensuring governments can focus on governance instead of being perpetually in election mode. The proposal will cut election-related expenses and reduce the administrative burden on the government and election machinery,” Singh said.
The sheer scale of conducting elections simultaneously for the Lok Sabha, state Assemblies, and local bodies presents significant logistical and resource challenges.
The ‘One Nation, One Election’ proposal has ignited a fierce debate, reflecting divergent views on governance, democracy, and federalism. While the BJP champions it as a path to efficiency and stability, opposition parties like the RJD and Congress perceive it as a threat to India’s democratic and federal framework.
–IANS
ajk/khz