How the BJP’s ‘One Nation, One Election’ Is Redefining Indian Democracy
From the United States to Japan, democracies everywhere contend with a common predicament: the staggering financial burden of elections. Governments allocate vast budgets to organize them, while political parties and candidates pour in even greater sums to secure victory. This flood of money—both aboveboard and concealed—not only fuels corruption but often forges troubling alliances between business tycoons and politicians, bound by the relentless demand for funds. Fair elections remain the cornerstone of democracy, but their escalating costs can feel like a silent affliction, gradually undermining the very principles they are designed to protect.
In India, the world’s largest democracy, elections scale up into grand spectacles of participation and spending. With over a billion people involved, the process transcends politics, transforming into a sprawling festival of flags, rallies, sweets, and freebies. Spanning months, election seasons unfold in staggered phases, covering parliamentary, state, and local polls across 28 states and multiple union territories. The financial strain on the nation is immense, fueled not only by government and political party expenditures but also by the pervasive corruption and money laundering that frequently accompany the process.
The relentless cycle of political campaigns, rife with financial and ethical challenges, undeniably hampers India’s economic momentum. Yet democracy, by its very nature, cannot exist without elections. To address this dilemma, the Indian government has put forth the contentious “One Nation, One Election” proposal—a bold attempt to streamline the electoral process and curb costs and corruption. But the question persists: will this sweeping reform resolve India’s electoral quandary, or will it usher in a host of new complications?
An India Today report predicts that the cost of the 2024 elections could soar to a staggering 1.35 trillion rupees. While official figures remain unverified, experts believe the final cost will likely surpass this estimate. The Centre for Media Studies, a Delhi-based non-profit, revealed that India spent over 600 billion rupees on the 2019 general elections, making it the world’s most expensive at the time. Added to this are the billions spent on various state elections. Confronted with these enormous costs, the government has proposed a solution aimed at reducing financial strain: the merger of national and state elections, to be held once every five years. This forms the backbone of the “One Nation, One Election” initiative. The Indian government is considering the synchronization of all elections, whether within a single month or a set time frame, to ease the financial burden of repeated electoral cycles.
Beyond financial savings, the government argues that the proposal would bring other benefits: by avoiding the disruptions caused by ongoing election seasons, governance could become more efficient, and politicians could focus on national issues rather than just campaigning. Additionally, the government believes it would also boost voter participation and encourage greater political engagement.
For years, Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has been a staunch advocate for the concept of “One Nation, One Election.” The party has long supported a vision of a strong central government over a decentralized federal system. But this idea has sparked fierce opposition, particularly from India’s regional parties and the Congress Party, the country’s historic political powerhouse.
The Congress Party now opposes the “One Nation, One Election” proposal, despite having conducted unified elections from 1951 to 1967. In stark contrast to Modi’s vision of a centralized system, Congress seems fragmented and hesitant to endorse the initiative. Party leaders fear the proposal could bolster Modi’s position, using his national popularity to secure synchronized state and parliamentary elections, potentially weakening Congress’s foothold in state politics. Many regional parties share this concern, believing the plan would further undermine India’s federal structure. They worry that national issues would dominate in a unified election cycle, sidelining state-specific concerns and diminishing the influence of regional governments in the national conversation.
With a five-year parliamentary term and the possibility of no elections in between, critics argue that such a system would free the ruling party from the democratic “Test” of frequent elections. This, they warn, could empower the government to push through unpopular policies—like fuel price hikes—without fear of electoral consequence.
Though the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) still enjoys a commanding position, even with a two-thirds majority necessary to amend the constitution, its path to implementing “One Nation, One Election” faces obstacles. On Tuesday, India’s law minister, Arjun Ram Meghwal, introduced a bill in Parliament to establish the system, only for it to fail in a vote. In a notable twist, even BJP members—including a prominent union minister—abstained from voting. However, the government remains undeterred, planning to move the issue to a parliamentary committee for further deliberation. The committee will review a report from former President Ram Nath Kovind, who chaired a nine-member panel recommending simultaneous elections. Kovind described the proposal as a “Game Changer,” citing economists who believe the change could bolster India’s GDP by up to 1.5%.
India, the world’s largest democracy, is perpetually in election season. With 28 states, eight union territories, and nearly a billion eligible voters, elections are an ever-present feature of the nation’s political landscape. Unifying all elections into one season may reduce the spectacle and vibrancy of the process, but it could ultimately strengthen India’s democracy by streamlining elections and curbing excessive spending. However, this shift risks eroding the federal nature of India’s constitution, potentially creating tension at the local level. The impact of the “One Nation, One Election” proposal could fundamentally alter Indian democracy, diminishing the role of federalism and state-level politics, leaving national parties and their agendas with dominant influence.
