Former President Ram Nath Kovind, who recently chaired the high-level committee on "One Nation, One Election," elaborated on the rationale and potential benefits of implementing simultaneous elections in India. In his first major interview since leaving office, speaking at the Agenda Aaj Tak event, Kovind emphasized that the concept has historical roots in India's democratic framework and is fundamentally designed to enhance governance. He pointed out that elections should not become an ongoing distraction but rather serve their primary purpose of enabling governments to focus on policy-making and addressing citizens' needs.
Using the state of Rajasthan as a case study, Kovind illustrated how frequent elections disrupt the administrative machinery and hinder governance. Following the state assembly elections in 2023, a new government assumed office and undertook significant bureaucratic reshuffles. However, when citizens approached the government to follow up on campaign promises, they were often told to wait until after the Lok Sabha elections in mid-2024. By the time these elections concluded, preparations for local panchayat elections in early 2026 would commence, with attention soon shifting to the next assembly elections scheduled for 2028. This unending cycle, according to Kovind, diverts attention and resources, leaving little room for meaningful governance or policy implementation.
Kovind reminded audiences that simultaneous elections were once the norm, with Lok Sabha and Vidhan Sabha polls held together from 1952 to 1967. The system changed over time due to various disruptions, but the original model, he asserted, was designed for efficiency and stability. Today, he noted, the Constitution permits multiple elections, but the high frequency of electoral processes—stretching over nearly four years in a five-year governance cycle—has created inefficiencies that need urgent addressing.
Economic ramifications were a focal point in Kovind’s arguments. Drawing from the findings of the committee he chaired, which included economist NK Singh, Kovind highlighted the exorbitant costs associated with India’s current electoral model. He revealed that staggered elections cost the nation between ₹5 lakh crore and ₹5.5 lakh crore. By consolidating these elections, the expenditure could be drastically reduced to around ₹50,000 crore. This shift would free up substantial financial resources, which could then be redirected toward boosting GDP growth, reducing inflation, and accelerating industrial development. Kovind estimated that simultaneous elections could contribute to a 1 to 1.5 percent increase in GDP, underscoring the transformative potential of this reform.
Addressing political concerns, Kovind firmly rejected the notion that "One Nation, One Election" is a BJP-driven initiative. He clarified that the concept aligns with the vision of India’s founding fathers, who designed the electoral system to allow governments to serve stable five-year terms. He stressed that the proposal was neither new nor partisan, but rather a reflection of the original intent behind India’s constitutional design. The committee’s report, he said, was a contribution to national discourse and a step toward improving governance efficiency.
Kovind also tackled criticisms labeling simultaneous elections as unconstitutional. Referring to the Preamble of the Constitution, he argued that it emphasizes principles such as justice, equality, and efficiency. He questioned whether the current system, with its frequent elections and governance delays, truly serves the people’s interests. “While speaking of justice,” Kovind remarked, “are we not doing injustice to the masses by maintaining a system that diverts resources and time away from governance?”
The former President concluded by emphasizing the significance of the committee’s recommendations, which he described as a roadmap for a more efficient and responsive governance model. The idea of synchronized elections, he argued, is not merely about cutting costs but about fostering stability, enabling policy continuity, and enhancing India’s democratic system.
Kovind’s comments have sparked renewed debate on the feasibility, merits, and challenges of implementing "One Nation, One Election." While supporters argue that it would streamline governance, improve resource allocation, and reduce the influence of money in politics, critics remain cautious about its impact on federalism, logistical hurdles, and the balance of power between central and state governments. The discussion around the committee’s findings and the broader implications of this reform are expected to gain momentum in the coming months as stakeholders from across the political spectrum weigh in on the proposal.
