On February 17, 2025, Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government proposed a significant constitutional amendment that could reshape the electoral landscape in India. The amendment aims to synchronize federal, state, and local elections, mandating that they occur simultaneously every five years. This initiative, known as "One Nation, One Election," has sparked intense debate across the political spectrum, raising concerns about state autonomy and the potential concentration of power at the national level.
India’s democratic process is already unique, with over 640 million citizens participating in last year’s general elections, which were staggered over seven phases. This system allows for a diverse array of regional and local parties to engage with voters continuously, reflecting the country’s vast political landscape. However, Modi’s proposal seeks to streamline this process, potentially diminishing the significance of state elections and reducing the political influence of regional parties.
The government argues that holding simultaneous elections would lead to cost savings and a more efficient political calendar. Modi has pointed out that this practice was common in India shortly after independence. However, critics are concerned that such a shift could undermine the federal structure of the country, where the balance of power between the central government and states has been a longstanding issue.
Opposition leaders have voiced strong objections to the amendment. They argue that it poses a threat to the constitutional framework that ensures regional representation and diversity. Lawmakers from various parties have described the proposal as a "heinous conspiracy" to undermine the Constitution. Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M. K. Stalin emphasized the risk of eroding regional sentiments and political significance if state elections are overshadowed by national narratives.
Some parliamentarians have invoked the Basic Structure Doctrine, a judicial principle that protects fundamental aspects of the Constitution from amendment. This doctrine has historically been a safeguard against the erosion of federalism, and its invocation in this context highlights the perceived existential stakes of the proposed changes.
While Modi’s government lacks the two-thirds parliamentary majority required to pass the amendment, the ruling party has launched a high-profile campaign to garner support. This effort indicates that the BJP views the amendment as crucial to its long-term political strategy. By aligning national and state elections, Modi may seek to leverage his popularity to marginalize opposition parties that thrive in regional contests.
The implications of this proposal extend beyond logistics; they touch on the very identity of the Indian state. Modi’s vision of a unified electoral process reflects a broader ideological stance that prioritizes national identity, often framed through a Hindu lens. This contrasts sharply with the secular socialist vision of India’s first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, who advocated for a diverse and pluralistic society.
As the debate unfolds, it remains to be seen how this proposal will impact India’s political landscape. The push for synchronized elections could alter the dynamics of power, potentially reinforcing the BJP’s dominance while challenging the traditional federal structure that has characterized Indian democracy for decades.