THE REAL CASE FOR ONE NATION, ONE ELECTION

ONOE encourages governments to focus on performance across a whole term instead of constant political calculation. Strong governance needs rhythm. India deserves that rhythm.

- MAMIDALA JAGADESH KUMAR

One Nation, One Election has become a sharp point of political debate in India. Dissenting voices frame it as a threat to democracy. They warn of constitutional distortion, centralisation of power, shrinking space for state leadership, rising costs, weakened federalism and administrative chaos.

These claims repeat fear, not fact. ONOE demands scrutiny, yet scrutiny must stay honest. The reform deserves a reasoned national conversation, not alarm wrapped as wisdom.

The first attack claims that ONOE violates the Constitution. This argument collapses under constitutional history. Articles 83 and 172 clearly define five-year terms for the Lok Sabha and State Legislatures. India actually began with simultaneous elections from 1952 to 1967. The system did not fail. It was the collapse of coalitions and defections that disrupted legislative terms.

The Constitution never opposed aligned elections.

The Constituent Assembly did not fear term alignment. It feared instability. Dr Ambedkar warned that democracy must avoid fractured mandates that paralyse governance. The Law Commission confirmed in 1999, and also in 2018, the constitutional feasibility of ONOE. The Election Commission of India submitted detailed plans to Parliament on procedural steps. Constitutional amendments under Article 368 can include state ratification. That ensures partnership, not unilateral change. ONOE fits constitutional morality because it follows democratic procedure.