One Nation, One Election: A Democratic Reform Through the Eyes of Young India

The democratic journey of India has never been static. From the first general elections of 1951–52, when the votes for both the Union and state governments were cast simultaneously, to today’s multi-layered electoral calendar, the country has continuously adapted its democratic mechanisms to changing political and social realities. The proposal for One Nation One Election (ONOE) must be viewed within the broader context of democratic evolution.

Illustration by The Geostrata

Is it a reform which can address contemporary governance challenges, or is it an extensive procedural change which has many implications? Let us find out.

For India, where over 65% of the population is under 35, debates around ONOE, or indeed any governance matter, are far from being institutional; rather, they are generational. In this light, young Indians are deeply invested in governance outcomes: from jobs, education, infrastructure, and climate resilience. Thus, even the electoral process must evolve to better serve these aspirations.

THE HISTORICAL ROOTS OF ONE NATION, ONE ELECTION

Usually, unlike what most people think, at the time of Independence, simultaneous elections were not an unfamiliar concept to our Indian democracy. As stated above, the first general elections of 1951–52 were conducted with elections to the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies taking place together.

This practice continued in the elections of 1957 and 1962, reflecting the consensus on the administrative efficiency and democratic coherence of a synchronised electoral process at the time.

So how did it get discontinued? The crucial aspect is that this discontinuation of simultaneous elections was an unintended consequence of political instability rather than a deliberate constitutional redesign. Let us find out how. The 1960s were a troubled phase from the perspective of political instability in India. The premature dissolution of several state assemblies and the Lok Sabha during the late 1960s and early 1970s led to multiple elections at different time periods becoming the norm as abstract ideas of democracy became increasingly common in our politics.

Over time, this unintended consequence hardened into practice. As a result, the renewed discussion around ONOE in Parliament and policy circles today is therefore less about introducing a new idea and more about revisiting an earlier democratic arrangement in light of contemporary governance challenges. 

WHY DOES ONOE DESERVE SERIOUS CONSIDERATION

At its core, ONOE proposes simultaneous elections to the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies, which is basically synchronising the democratic calendar. The most immediate benefit of this model is governance stability. Let us look deeper into it.

So India today remains in a near-permanent election mode. The frequent enforcement of the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) disrupts policymaking, delays development projects, and diverts administrative energy toward election management as second-order effects. Now, while these things are in themselves a big hurdle, they have a compounded effect on the younger citizens, who need efficiency in governance for their overall welfare.

Stalled infrastructure, delayed welfare delivery, and the resulting policy paralysis. It all adds up.

For a youth demographic increasingly concerned with outcomes over rhetoric, this shift matters. To summarise this, if implemented, ONOE can allow the governance machinery, from the governments to bureaucracy, to focus on long-term policymaking.

Importantly, the debate around ONOE is no longer confined to policy corridors alone. Across university campuses and youth forums, particularly in regions that have historically remained at the margins of national political discourse, young citizens are engaging with this reform through collective mobilisation. This emerging grassroots engagement reflects a growing sense among young people that electoral reforms are not abstract institutional exercises, but policy decisions with direct consequences for governance, representation, and political stability.

This trend is visible in Jammu & Kashmir, where organised youth leadership has played a role in translating the ONOE debate into structured campus discussions and engagement initiatives for the students. Arun Prabhat, State President of the Bharatiya Janata Yuva Morcha (BJYM), has emerged as one of the early drivers of this youth-led outreach, bringing conversations around One Nation, One Election into university spaces across the region.

Through sustained interaction with students and young voters, these efforts have focused on building awareness around the constitutional, administrative, and governance dimensions of the policy, rather than limiting engagement to electoral mobilisation alone. Such initiatives indicate a growing willingness among young citizens to engage with democratic reforms through dialogue and participation, reinforcing the idea that ONOE is increasingly being discussed not just as a top-down proposal, but as a subject of grassroots political literacy and youth involvement.

DEMOCRATIC ACCOUNTABILITY BEYOND THE BALLOT

However, as is the case with any idea or reform, this one is not perfect either. It has some limitations that need careful addressing. A common critique of ONOE is that fewer elections will reduce democratic accountability. However, accountability in a modern democracy should extend far beyond the ballot box. Parliamentary oversight, judicial review, media scrutiny, civil society activism, social media discourse, and local governance mechanisms continue to function regardless of election cycles.

In fact, a more stable electoral calendar may encourage issue-based voting rather than fragmented, emotionally and politically charged campaigns spread across the year. This is something that India needs. Young voters, who are more informed, digitally connected, and naturally more policy-conscious, stand to benefit from elections that put governance records at the core instead of perpetual political noise.

Arun Prabhat, State President BJYM

More importantly, concerns regarding federalism and the overshadowing of regional issues deserve careful attention. However, ONOE does not dilute federalism; rather, it requires institutional safeguards to preserve it.

India’s immense diversity demands political space for regional aspirations. However, ONOE does not inherently dilute federalism; rather, it requires institutional safeguards to preserve it. India’s immense diversity demands political space for regional aspirations.

In this case, again, if implemented, States retain their legislative powers, political identities, and other accountability structures. Synchronised elections need not erase regional voices; they can, in fact, have the potential to encourage clearer articulation of state-specific agendas on a national platform. Talking about young leaders who are emerging from grassroots politics, ONOE has the possibilities to catalyse and nurture leadership beyond election cycles.

For many young Indians, particularly those engaging with policy advocacy and democratic reform at the grassroots level, ONOE represents an opportunity to move beyond episodic electoral participation towards sustained political engagement. By reducing the dominance of perpetual campaigning, space can be created for leadership development, policy dialogue, and issue-based mobilisation areas where young voices have increasingly begun to assert themselves.

Democracy is not weakened by reform; rather, it is strengthened through thoughtful adaptation. For young India, the real question is not whether One Nation, One Election is a flawless proposal, but whether the existing, perpetually staggered electoral system genuinely serves the country’s future needs. A democracy that spends a disproportionate amount of its time preparing for elections risks diverting attention away from governance and long-term development.

In this context, ONOE, if implemented with constitutional care and sensitivity to India’s federal structure, has the potential to reduce political fatigue among voters and create greater space for youth to engage more substantively in public life beyond recurring election cycles. 

When India gained its independence, famous intellectuals like Milovan Djilas of former Yugoslavia were confident that India wouldn't last the decade as a unified nation-state. As we set in motion these changes it is important to look beyond political issues and regional politics to ensure that the vision that is being carried forward through this process is consistent with our aspirations as a young nation which often has to deal with an old country and heritage that itself demands such long term and cyclical changes we so desperately need and to show the resilience of our nation against those who challenge our beliefs in democracy. 

---

BY VISHESH CHAUDHARY

TEAM GEOSTRATA

info@thegeostrata.com