India's democracy needs diverse electoral rhythms, 'One Nation, One Election' proposal criticized
The 'One Nation, One Election (ONOE)' proposal is criticized as a threat to India's federal structure and democratic accountability. The parliamentary system's inherent flexibility, where governments are accountable to the legislature, contrasts with the rigid, fixed-term approach of ONOE. Critics argue ONOE would undermine federalism by subordinating regional choices to national dynamics, distort electoral mandates, and create 'lame-duck' administrations. Economic arguments for ONOE are also challenged, with claims that campaign spending stimulates the informal economy and the Model Code of Conduct prevents misuse, not routine governance paralysis.
Key Points
- The 'One Nation, One Election' (ONOE) proposal is seen as undermining federalism and democratic accountability.
- The parliamentary system inherently requires flexibility in electoral rhythms, unlike fixed-term presidential systems.
- ONOE could lead to truncated terms and 'lame-duck' governments, weakening stability and long-term policymaking.
- Combining State and national elections could overshadow local issues with national narratives, distorting voter choices.
- Economic arguments for ONOE are questioned, with campaign spending viewed as an economic stimulus rather than a burden.
Exam Facts
- Proposal: 'One Nation, One Election' (ONOE)
- Author of article: Shashi Tharoor (Fourth-term MP, Thiruvananthapuram)
- Historical election timeline: 1952-1967 (synchronised elections)
- Regulatory framework: Model Code of Conduct
- Constitutional mechanism: President's Rule / State of Emergency
Read it. Retain it. Recall it.
Get spaced-repetition flashcards, daily quizzes and offline access — free on Android.