According to a study, 77 per cent voters are likely to vote for the same party at the Center and in the states if the elections are held on a 'one country, one election' basis.
 |
| Photo (https://unsplash.com/photos/9Dt4WutvwDs) |
As Prime Minister Narendra Modi begins his second term, he has embraced his most cherished concept of 'One Country, One Election'. In fact, the program is a top priority of the new government. A committee of experts has also been set up to study the complexities of this innovation. This shows that the Modi government has decided to keep this controversial issue under constant discussion. In the previous tenure, it took a long time to discuss and accept recommendations on this issue with many bodies like Law Commission, Policy Commission, Standing Committee of Parliament, Election Commission.
Since the beginning of the discussion of 'One Country, One Election', many proposals have come up in this regard. It proposes that the Lok Sabha, various Assembly and Union Territory elections will be held by 2024 by moving the election schedule back and forth at different times. For this, the tenure of the present state governments will have to be more or less. Constitutional changes will have to be made. Moreover, it requires political consensus. Another important proposal is to hold all elections in two phases.
In fact, the idea of joint elections is not new to the country. In 1999, when the Vajpayee government was at the Center, the Law Commission had in its report recommended holding all the elections in the country at the same time. At the time, the possibility had been raised for the first time. However, as the then government was led by various parties, the idea remained in the report of the Law Commission.
Why Joint elections ?
Proponents of joint elections are also pushing for a number of reasons to agree to administrative and constitutional changes. The first reason is world famous. That is, continuous elections place a huge financial burden on the country. Holding elections is a financially unaffordable process and it is becoming more and more expensive. If all the elections are held at the same time, there will be huge savings in these expenses. Another argument is that if joint elections are held, political parties will not have to constantly raise funds for it. It is hoped that this will reduce the number of hands used by political parties to raise funds. Most importantly, it will give the government as much time as possible to keep its election promises. Like today, the government will not waste time in any election campaign throughout the year.
Continuous elections are a constant code of conduct. Once a code of conduct is in place, it has an immediate effect on administrative work. Delays in implementation of welfare schemes and infrastructure projects. In addition, there are many types of administrative restrictions. Development work is hampered by various administrative appointments and transfers. This leads to policy paralysis during the election period and stagnation of governance.
Combined elections are also expected to increase the turnout significantly. Moreover, once elections are held, the politics of caste, religion and hatred will be curtailed. Whatever happens, happens once. There is also a prediction that the environment will not be polluted frequently.
Is Implementation Possible ? Make it Possible
While the concept of 'one country, one election' may seem attractive on paper, it has many contradictions. Implementing this is a big challenge. The key issue is the situation that arises if the Lok Sabha or the state assembly is dismissed prematurely. This can lead to a big problem. Prior to 1967, joint elections were a common occurrence. However, the picture changed in 1968, 1969 when some state legislatures were dissolved and in 1970 the Lok Sabha was dissolved before the end of its term. Our country, the largest democracy in the world, is still not free from this round of government dismissals.
The Election Commission has suggested an alternative to the impediment to early government dismissal. In such a manner, the Commission is of the view that the administration should be run by the Office of the President till the expiration of the fixed term of the Legislative Assemblies. The commission also said that the administration should be run with the cooperation and advice of the cabinet appointed by the president.
While considering the concept of 'one country, one election', it is necessary to study some serious legal and administrative issues. Under current law, the Election Commission is required to hold elections within six months of the early dismissal of an Assembly. If this period is to be extended for holding joint elections, the constitution will have to be changed.
The president can never live without a cabinet, the Supreme Court has ruled. N. Explained in the case of Mrs. Indira Gandhi against Rao. As a result, the need for a caretaker government arises automatically. Central Government v. S. R. This is consistent with the 1994 verdict in the Bommai case. According to him, the caretaker government can only do its day-to-day work. No one can make strategic decisions. Therefore, the situation of the caretaker government after the dismissal of the premature government and the situation during the period of the code of conduct will be the same from the point of view of governance. It may be more than six months.
The Law Commission had suggested a solution to this situation in 1999. Accordingly, a no-confidence motion against a government should be followed by a no-confidence motion for an alternative government. Another option has come up against the hurdle of early government dismissal. If there is a long period between the dismissal of the government and new elections, it is proposed that fresh elections be held for the remaining period. However, this does not give the elected representatives time to work at full capacity. The legislators had fixed a period of five years so that the people's representatives would have enough time to understand the work of the people and sort it out. Elections for an indefinite period will undermine the intentions of the legislators.
Upgrading the Federal Framework
The Indian Constitution has adopted the federal framework principle. India is a union of different states and power is divided between the center and the states. This structure does not upset the balance of power between different parties and ideologies at the center and in the states. Moreover, regular elections are an opportunity for these rulers to somehow win the hearts and minds of the people. The results of these elections serve to control power. The recent election defeats in Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Chhattisgarh predicted a changed political landscape for the BJP.
From the federal point of view, joint elections may be in the interest of these regional parties. If there is a 'joint election', there is a fear that only national issues will be at the center. Regional issues will not get much space in the campaign. So this method would be against the public interest.
Collective elections are also said to be beneficial to the ruling political party at the Center. There is also some evidence to prove this. According to a recent study by the IDFC, if a joint election is held, 77 per cent of the electorate is likely to vote for a single party in the state.
Overall, joint elections are a very complicated process. The government has also not taken up the issue widely. While it is a good idea to set up a committee of experts to understand the various aspects of this strategic issue, it needs to be discussed and agreed upon by all. It doesn't seem to have happened yet.
Post a Comment