Nagaland MLA opposes 'One Nation, One Election' in Legislative Assembly, calls it a threat to Federalism

Achumbemo Kikon, Member of the Nagaland Legislative Assembly (NLA) representing the Naga People’s Front (NPF), voiced strong opposition to the proposed ‘One Nation, One Election’ (ONOE) concept, calling it a direct assault on India’s federal structure and the democratic spirit of the nation. Speaking under Rule 54 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the NLA, Kikon argued that the idea of simultaneous elections for the Lok Sabha and state assemblies would undermine the unique diversity and regional autonomy that form the foundation of India’s democratic framework.

“India is a union of states with a federal structure, and the ONOE proposal is detrimental to the very essence and fabric of our democracy,” Kikon stated. He pointed out that India’s states were created at different stages and for different reasons — some on linguistic lines and others, like Nagaland, through political agreements. “The concept of ONOE goes against the spirit of ‘Unity in Diversity’ that India is known for globally,” he added.

Highlighting India’s rich diversity, Kikon argued that a “one-size-fits-all” approach would be impractical and counterproductive. He noted that in both parliamentary and assembly elections, voters primarily repose their faith in local candidates rather than national political parties. “India’s rural population still forms a significant majority, and regional political parties play a crucial role in addressing their specific issues. National parties often fail to adequately address local concerns, leading to regional imbalances in development,” he said.

Kikon warned that the implementation of ONOE would drastically reduce voter turnout and diminish the vibrancy of Indian democracy. “The celebration of our democracy is often measured by voter participation. If ONOE is imposed, this participation will erode rapidly and become a thing of the past,” he cautioned.

Refuting the argument that ONOE would reduce election-related expenditure, Kikon pointed out that the current cost of elections accounts for only about 0.33% of India’s GDP, which stands at approximately ₹300 lakh crore. He argued that this expense is not a significant burden on the economy and suggested that more effective cost-reduction measures could be achieved through amendments to the Representation of the People Act. “We can incorporate stringent measures to regulate overall election expenditure without compromising the federal structure,” he said.

Kikon also expressed concern over the potential shift to a List Party Proportional Representation (LPPR) system, which is practiced in countries like South Africa, Belgium, and Sweden — nations with far smaller populations and geographical areas compared to India. “India has successfully operated under the First-Past-The-Post (FPTP) system since independence. This system allows voters to know their representatives personally, fostering a direct link between them and their leaders. LPPR would delink this vital connection, making it difficult for citizens to identify and hold their representatives accountable,” he explained.

Further, Kikon argued that simultaneous elections would undermine the relevance of regional political parties. “National agendas would overshadow local issues, and regional parties — which protect distinct identities, cultures, traditions, and customary practices — would lose their significance,” he said. He also warned that national political parties could use their financial dominance and government machinery to suppress regional voices, ultimately leading to a “one-party rule” reminiscent of communist regimes.

Addressing logistical challenges, Kikon pointed out that conducting simultaneous elections in Nagaland’s difficult terrain would strain administrative resources, including security personnel and election officials. “The initial expenditure for synchronizing electoral infrastructure, like EVMs and voter rolls, would place an additional burden on resource-crunched states like Nagaland, which rely heavily on central funding,” he said.

He further warned that fixed electoral cycles would reduce political accountability, depriving voters of the opportunity to hold governments responsible through mid-term state elections. In Nagaland’s context, Kikon stressed that ongoing peace processes and political negotiations require uninterrupted attention — something that frequent elections help maintain. “Centralized electoral campaigns could sideline Naga-specific issues, such as the Naga political struggle and the special constitutional protections under Article 371(A),” he cautioned.

Kikon also criticized the Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) push for ONOE, comparing it to the Congress party’s dominance in the 1950s and 60s. He argued that the collapse of simultaneous elections in 1967 led to the emergence of India’s coalition era, allowing regional parties to gain prominence and helping the BJP itself rise to power. “Had simultaneous elections continued, the BJP would likely have remained a lesser-known political entity today,” he remarked.

Concluding his statement, Kikon made an emphatic appeal to thoroughly discuss and debate the ONOE proposal in the Nagaland Legislative Assembly. “I strongly object to the simultaneous election of the Lok Sabha and state assemblies and do not subscribe to the concept of One Nation, One Election. I urge that this matter be debated in earnest in this august House at an appropriate time,” he said.