Don't we think that frequent elections in India are like celebrating festivals? The Election Commission of India conducts elections every one, two, or three months, which has become a significant problem in India. According to experts, frequent elections hamper long-term policymaking because every decision is seen as bait for votes. This leads to a short-term focus, neglecting crucial issues that require sustained attention and planning.
The current system also puts a massive strain on the public exchequer. The cost of conducting elections has been increasing over the years. In 1952, the first Lok Sabha elections cost around Rs 11 crore, while in 2014, the government spent almost Rs 3,870 crore. In 2019, there was a 40% jump from 2014, costing an unprecedented Rs 50,000 crore, according to the Centre for Media Studies. These figures are just estimates, and actual costs are likely higher when including incentives like television sets, goats, and liquor to influence voters.
"One Nation, One Election" means structuring the Indian election cycle so that elections to Lok Sabha and State Assemblies are synchronized. In such a scenario, voters would cast their votes for electing members of Lok Sabha and State Assembly on a single day and at the same time. This would not only reduce costs but also minimize disruptions to governance.
The benefits of simultaneous elections are numerous. It would lead to significant savings of public funds that can be better utilized elsewhere. Almost all political parties spend large sums of money during campaigns, and the cost of elections, allegations of corruption, and vote buying are raising calls for electoral reform. The Model Code of Conduct, which stops government agendas, would be enforced only once, giving governments more time to perform. Simultaneous elections would also reduce the burden on security forces, which are often diverted from their core duties for elections. Additionally, it would minimize the disruption to essential services like education and healthcare, as teachers and medical professionals are often deployed as polling officials.
The Law Commission, headed by Justice B P Jeevan Reddy, recommended in its 1999 report that elections to Lok Sabha and Legislative Assemblies be held simultaneously. Several other committees, including the Sarkaria Commission and the Nanda Committee, have also endorsed this idea.
However, implementing "One Nation, One Election" would require significant changes to the electoral framework. It would involve amending the Constitution, specifically Articles 83(2) and 172(1), which deal with the tenure of Lok Sabha and State Assemblies. The Election Commission would need to work closely with state governments to synchronize election schedules.
Despite these challenges, the present government is working on implementing "One Nation, One Election" as part of its agenda, following the principles of "One Nation, One Tax" under GST. If implemented successfully, it could be a game-changer for India's electoral process, enabling governments to focus on governance rather than election campaigns.
Some potential advantages of "One Nation, One Election" include: - Reduced election fatigue among voters - Increased voter turnout due to synchronized polling.
- More stable governments with a clear mandate - Better policy-making and governance - Significant savings of public funds
However, there are also concerns about the feasibility and potential risks of simultaneous elections, such as: - Difficulty in implementing changes to the electoral framework - Potential for dominant national issues to overshadow local concerns and - Risk of undermining federalism and state autonomy
Despite these challenges, the idea of "One Nation, One Election" deserves serious consideration and debate. By exploring innovative solutions and engaging in constructive discussions, India can strengthen its democratic processes and ensure more effective governance.
Author is a Free-Lance Journalist, Writer & Cartoonist |
