The proposal of 'One Nation, One Election' (ONOE), which seeks to synchronize elections across all levels of governance in India, has sparked an intense and polarizing debate on its implications for federalism, democracy, governance, and economic efficiency. Two prominent legal and constitutional experts, Harish Salve and Abhishek Manu Singhvi, presented sharply contrasting perspectives in separate interviews with India Today TV, reflecting the broader ideological divide on this contentious reform.
Harish Salve, a noted jurist and member of the Ram Nath Kovind-led Committee on ONOE, advocated for the proposal, describing it as a necessary step towards minimizing electoral disruptions and inefficiencies. He dismissed concerns about ONOE undermining federalism as superficial and rooted in a limited understanding of the constitutional framework. Salve argued that Indian federalism inherently allows for overlaps between the powers of the Union and states, making the principle of federalism compatible with synchronized elections. Addressing criticisms that the proposal erodes state autonomy, he pointed out that no constitutional guarantee ensures elected governments must serve uninterrupted five-year terms. Instead, he suggested that a one-time disruption to realign electoral cycles would pave the way for long-term consistency and governance stability.
Salve further emphasized the economic and administrative benefits of ONOE, citing inefficiencies caused by frequent elections. According to econometric models, he stated, staggered electoral cycles lead to a GDP loss exceeding 1% annually due to policy paralysis, resource diversion, and prolonged disruptions. While acknowledging that the direct cost of elections, ranging between ₹3,000 and ₹5,000 crore, represents the price of democracy, he contended that the hidden costs of frequent elections far outweigh these expenses. He urged critics to focus on the broader picture and engage in constructive discussions to address logistical and constitutional challenges. Salve proposed a phased implementation of ONOE, potentially over three to five years, allowing the Election Commission sufficient time to scale up logistical capacities, including the procurement of additional Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs).
In stark contrast, Congress leader and senior lawyer Abhishek Manu Singhvi offered a scathing critique of the proposal, dismissing it as “appealing but operationally unreal.” He argued that ONOE risks undermining democratic processes and diluting the autonomy of state governments. Describing the initiative as a “reset button on democracy,” Singhvi warned that it could lead to truncated electoral mandates, where mid-term dissolved governments would be forced to align with synchronized election timelines. Such scenarios, he claimed, would undermine voter intent and democratic accountability, creating untenable situations where re-elected governments might serve shortened terms.
Singhvi also rejected the economic rationale behind ONOE, questioning the empirical basis for claims that it would boost GDP. He argued that the logistical demands of synchronized elections—such as personnel deployment, polling booths, and voter mobilization—would remain unchanged. According to Singhvi, ONOE does not reduce the scale or complexity of elections but merely consolidates them into a single timeframe. He further cautioned that the initiative would blur the distinction between national and regional issues, imposing a homogeneity on India’s diverse political landscape. By forcing state elections to align with national polls, Singhvi argued, ONOE would diminish the space for state-specific concerns and weaken the federal structure.
On procedural grounds, Singhvi criticized the government’s approach to bypassing state consent, predicting that such actions would face judicial scrutiny. He accused the government of attempting to centralize power under the guise of uniformity, likening the initiative to other policies that he claimed undermine India’s pluralistic ethos. “This government wants one language, one religion, one party, and now one election,” Singhvi remarked, warning against the erosion of India’s democratic and cultural diversity. He expressed skepticism about the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) tasked with reviewing ONOE, arguing that its majoritarian framework would serve to legitimize preordained decisions rather than fostering genuine deliberation.
Harish Salve countered these criticisms, asserting that ONOE would not compromise state autonomy or democratic principles. Instead, he argued, it would strengthen governance by reducing electoral disruptions and promoting policy continuity. Salve emphasized that the success of ONOE depends on building a broad-based consensus among political parties, stakeholders, and the public. He encouraged critics to engage with the proposal constructively, suggesting that their objections could help refine its implementation framework. “Please read the report carefully. Maybe you have some excellent objections. Articulate them. Let it be debated in different public forums,” Salve said.
The two experts also diverged on the logistical challenges of ONOE. While Singhvi highlighted the immense scale and complexity of synchronizing elections across India, Salve reassured that these challenges could be managed through careful planning and phased implementation. Singhvi questioned the practicality of managing such a massive exercise without compromising efficiency and fairness, while Salve argued that a one-time disruption was a small price to pay for long-term benefits.
The debate surrounding ONOE encapsulates the broader tensions between centralization and decentralization, uniformity and diversity, and efficiency and inclusivity. Proponents view it as a transformative reform to streamline governance and reduce electoral disruptions, while critics warn of its potential risks to federalism, democratic accountability, and state autonomy. As the government advances its discussions, the proposal remains a lightning rod for polarized opinions, requiring careful navigation of legal, logistical, and political challenges. The path ahead for ONOE will likely hinge on whether it can address these concerns while securing the broad consensus necessary for its successful implementation.
