We Need to Talk About the Ideology Behind One Nation, One Election

The proposal of "One Nation, One Election" (ONOE) has sparked intense debates in India's political and academic circles, raising critical questions about democratic processes, federalism, and electoral efficiency. Proponents argue that simultaneous elections to the Lok Sabha and state assemblies could streamline governance, reduce electoral costs, and curb the relentless cycle of populist policies driven by frequent elections. Critics highlight the risks posed to India's federal structure, arguing that ONOE undermines the autonomy of states, diminishes democratic deliberation, and centralises power in unprecedented ways. However, beyond these functional arguments and their rebuttals lies a deeper ideological framework that warrants examination. This article investigates the latent political ethos enabling a proposal like ONOE, interrogating the sociopolitical conditions and state imagination it seeks to normalise. By situating the proposal within India's contemporary political milieu, it explores how ONOE reflects an impulse to privilege a homogenised, simplified notion of democracy aligned with state-led consolidation, thereby undermining the messy, contested nature of democratic politics. In doing so, the article reveals ONOE as less about efficiency and more about reconfiguring India’s democratic ethos.

---

Many public intellectuals have put forth their thoughts on the “One Nation, One Election” (ONOE) proposal. Some for, most against. Unsurprisingly, the most compelling justifications have emerged from the very architects of the proposal (see Shankar 2024). On one end thus, supporters have mostly parroted the government’s line in outlining why ONOE ought to be good for the nation. However, it seems to me that even opponents of the proposal have also mirrored the state's line of argumentation (see Achary 2024). This unfortunately is characteristic of a subtle but crucial issue in political discourse: anti-state dissent often reinforces the ideological frameworks it seeks to oppose by engaging in debate on the state’s terms. In trying to refute the state’s arguments, dissidents have focused on why ONOE is “bad policy,” in contrast to “good policy.” Thus the most often cited argument against ONOE seems to be the legal and logistical difficulties—of administrative finances, of political party budgets, and the collapse of state governments. Beyond that, the ideological arguments against ONOE mirror the political rhetoric of the state itself- by emphasising diversity instead of unity, by advocating for decentralised federalism as a counter to national integration (Shunmugasundaram 2024).  

Thus, even in their ideological criticisms, the state’s manifest reasoning for the ONOE is accepted at face value. Arguments proceeding from this point try to demonstrate the legal and empirical faults in this very reasoning (Sibal 2024), in an effort to show why the ONOE policy either fails at what the government says it will do or has the opposite effect of what the government says is intended. There is little effort, however, to uncover the latent, and unsaid ideological framework behind the ONOE; to explain the kind of political milieu within which a proposal like the ONOE is brought forth. My disagreement with ONOE is explained more in terms of these lines, rather than in terms of policy, which other authors have covered well. Before that, however, some clarifications and examples to demonstrate the aforementioned point.  

First, many writers have written about how ONOE is incompatible with India’s diversity (Chakravarty 2024). However, this, as Mehta (2024) points out, is an “orthogonal issue”. Why should synchronisation of elections necessarily have an impact on diversity? As mentioned before, this argument is an exact mirror of the government’s argument that ONOE is necessary for national unity. There exist plenty of socially heterogeneous countries with staggered election cycles, like Brazil for example; while there are many socially homogenous countries that have simultaneous elections, like Sweden. The diversity argument against ONOE then, is as baseless as the unity argument for ONOE is.  

Second, critics of the ONOE initiative also argue that it may lead to voters casting similar votes for both Lok Sabha and assembly elections, thereby diminishing the distinctiveness of regional issues. At first glance, this argument reeks of the fallacy of viewing an Indian voter as gullible and uninformed. This ‘anti-democratic attitude’ is something that many supporters, as well as moderates, have pointed out (Mehta 2024). Some data, however, does support this conclusion. A 2019 study by the IDFC Institute highlights a 77% chance that the winning political party or alliance will secure victories in both Lok Sabha and Assembly elections when held simultaneously. If the elections are held six months apart, however, only 61% of the voters choose the same party. Thus, what concurrent elections might actually lead to is political unity, which benefits the consolidation of the dominant party, undermining the potential check-and-balance power that state legislatures have.  

Third, as to the concerns regarding federal structure, many fear that ONOE would disproportionately benefit national parties with more resources than regional parties. This criticism is based simply on bad economics. If all elections were held simultaneously, the national parties would be stretched thinner as well. In fact, national leaders may have to rely more on local collaborators since they cannot spend as much time in each state, as they can do now when elections are staggered. A more appropriate approach would be to try and envision the kind of dialectical relationship that regional forces would have with dominant political discourse vis-à-vis national forces, rather than simply looking at party finances. This remains a topic for another day however. 

Fourth, as far as the effect that ONOE has on politics is generally considered, contrary to popular belief, ONOE might even benefit popular politics at the grassroots. The most considered challenge with frequent elections is that we operate only in one mode of our democratic being — the mode of partisanship. Movements against patriarchy, for instance,  are hijacked by political parties to end up as movements against a particular government, not against a socio-political structure. In this way, some (Mehta 2024) argue that ONOE might actually be good for social movements, since “one of the ways in which our democracy has been impoverished is that we have let partisanship colonise democracy all the way down.”  

However, the greatest political risk of ONOE lies in the absence of an electoral mechanism to express discontent for a full five-year term. This concern has been widely criticised—and rightly so. Yet, these critiques often fall short of situating the proposal within a specific ideological context. They treat electoral cycles as the sole barometer of democratic health, overlooking how the consolidation of elections might shift the balance between formal electoral democracy and non-electoral avenues of political expression. The risk is not merely that discontent may go unaddressed but that movements may be deprived of critical moments for intervention within the electoral process. In such a system, the focus on idealistic notions of governance and efficiency may further marginalise oppositional spaces, constricting both participation and accountability.  

Let us consider once the most often cited line in favour of the ONOE. The state argues that the current electoral system “...result(s) in massive expenditure by the Government and other stakeholders, diversion of security forces and other electoral officers engaged in such elections from their primary duties for significantly prolonged periods, disruption in developmental work…” (Government of India 2024). Yadav (2024) echoes this framing, noting that “...the core argument (in favour of ONOE) is that simultaneous elections would improve the quality of governance: Cutting down on the diversion of government machinery, saving in state expenditure, and reducing the time window of policy freeze due to the operation of the Model Code of Conduct”.  

However, this perspective reduces elections to a mere administrative inconvenience—an interruption to the state’s agenda of “good governance.” As an Indian Express editorial put it bluntly, it reflects “an approach that sees elections as an interruption in ‘good governance,’ not as what they really are—an expression of the people’s will that is full-bodied and dynamic” (Editorial 2024). For governance to remain responsive, elections cannot be treated as disruptions but as essential democratic exercises that demand respect and meaningful engagement.  

Returning to the central theme of this debate—where do we locate such a political belief? This outlook reflects a broader trend in public life, often characterised as the “middle-class fantasies” of electoral reform (Yadav 2024). The government's aversion to welfare measures, disparagingly labelled as “revdis”, or freebies (Mateen 2022), are clear expressions of this mindset. These reforms seek to sanitise politics by curbing redistributive policies that are essential for marginalised groups, framing them as obstacles to efficient governance. Such tendencies reflect an impatience with the complexities of Indian democracy, rooted in a desire for stability and control, often at the expense of pluralism and social justice.  

Similarly, we may also look at Partha Chatterjee’s analysis as part of a broader commentary on how the middle class, despite benefiting from democratic frameworks, increasingly perceives electoral politics as a hindrance to effective governance (Chatterjee 2004). Their preference leans toward stability and technocratic solutions, seeing the chaotic nature of democratic engagement as unnecessary friction. The push for ONOE is only the latest in a series of attempts to impose order on a seemingly chaotic political landscape, prioritising governance efficiency over democratic plurality and vibrancy.  

Rather than framing the debate around the practicality of ONOE, we must ask: What vision of democracy does it embody? A democracy that sacrifices these moments in the name of efficiency may gain stability, but it does so at the cost of vitality, accountability, and justice. The real question, then, is not whether ONOE works, but whether we, as a people, are prepared to accept this reconfigured version of our democracy.  

by Pratyush Rudra

References

Achary, P.D.T. (2024): “The Misplaced Move of 'One Nation One Election',” The Hindu, 26 September, retrieved 15 October 2024, from https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/the-misplaced-move-of-one-nation-one-election/article68682803.ece.

Chakravarty, P. (2024): “One Nation, One Election: Why This Kolaveri?” Deccan Herald, 28 September, retrieved 15 October 2024, from https://www.deccanherald.com/opinion/one-nation-one-election-why-this-kolaveri-3211523.

Chatterjee, Partha (2004): The Politics of the Governed: Reflections on Popular Politics in Most of the World, New York: Columbia University Press.

Editorial (2024): “Express View on One Nation, One Election: Reject,” The Indian Express, 21 September, retrieved 15 October 2024, from https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/editorials/express-view-on-one-nation-one-election-reject-9579603/.

IDFC Institute (2019): “Voter Behavior When Simultaneous Elections Are Held.” IDFC Institute Blog, March, retrieved October 15, 2024, from http://www.idfcinstitute.org/blog/2019/march/voter-behavior-when-simultaneous-elections-are-held/.

Mateen, Z. (2022): “Freebies: The Row Over Handouts and Welfare Schemes in India,” British Broadcasting Corporation, 12 September, retrieved October 15, 2024, from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-62722592.

Mehta, Pratap Bhanu (2024): “Pratap Bhanu Mehta Writes: Why the Arguments For and Against One Nation One Election Are Flawed,” The Indian Express, 4 October, retrieved 15 October 2024, from https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/pratap-bhanu-mehta-writes-why-the-arguments-for-and-against-one-nation-one-election-are-flawed-9602525/.

Shankar, R. (2024): “One Nation, One Election Promises a More Efficient Democracy,” The Indian Express, 20 September, retrieved 15 October 2024, from https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/one-nation-one-election-promises-a-more-efficient-democracy-9577731/.

Shunmugasundaram, M. (2024): “Why One Nation, One Election Must Be Challenged,” The Indian Express, 20 September, retrieved 15 October 2024, from https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/why-one-nation-one-election-must-be-challenged-9577733/.

Sibal, Kapil (2024): “One Nation, One Election: Yet Another Jumla,” The New Indian Express, 29 September, retrieved 15 October 2024, from https://www.newindianexpress.com/opinions/2024/Sep/29/one-nation-one-election-yet-another-jumla.

Yadav, Yogendra (2024): “Yogendra Yadav Writes: One Nation One Election Is a Desire to Cut Down Clutter of Democratic Politics,” The Indian Express, 24 September, retrieved 15 October 2024, from https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/yogendra-yadav-writes-one-nation-one-election-is-a-desire-to-cut-down-clutter-of-democratic-politics-9584686/.