The One Nation, One Election (ONOE) is an electoral reform policy proposal that seeks to synchronise national and state elections, replacing the current fragmented electoral model. The policy outlines various benefits related to political, economic, and administrative advances. However, this policy attracts both criticisms and merits from various stakeholders in the country. This study aimed to explore scholars’ perceptions of the critical debate surrounding the ONOE policy, with an emphasis on its claims of benefits and criticisms by PhD scholars from Indian Universities. Using a qualitative research design, in-depth interviews were conducted with PhD scholars from Pondicherry University to gather their perceptions. Thematic analysis was then utilised as the data analysis method to extract themes from the respondents’ data. The study reveals that participants perceive that simultaneous elections pose risks of weakening the democratic process, marginalising vulnerable groups, exacerbating political polarisation, and questioning the feasibility of conducting the ONOE. It also underscores the need for an inclusive political system that respects the diverse culture of the Indian Nation and prioritises local needs over political consolidation. From these respondents’ perspective, the results advocate for an inclusive approach that protects the nation’s diversity, federal values, and local needs, while informing actionable social work interventions.
M et al. (Tue,) studied this question.