There has been a debate for a long time over elections to the Lok Sabha and state assemblies together. The Election Commission, Niti Aayog, Law Commission and Constitution Review Commission have discussed this subject. Recently, the Law Commission organized a three-day conference to get the opinion of various political parties, regional parties and administrative officials on the issue of simultaneous elections in the country. Some political parties agreed on this topic, and most political parties protested. His view is that it is contradictory to the democratic process. Without consensus it would not be possible to land on the real surface.
Necessity
Healthy and fair elections are the cornerstone of democracy with a compulsory process. If we look at the elections in the country, elections are held every year in some or the other state. Due to the continuous elections, there is an electoral atmosphere in the country. This affects administrative and policy decisions, but also puts additional economic burden on the country. To avoid all this, we decided to hold elections together.
Background
One country one election is not a new experiment, before simultaneous elections were held in 1952, 1957, 1962, 1967, but when the legislatures of some states were already dissolved in 1968-69 for some reason. The Lok Sabha elections in 1971 were also held ahead of time. Experts believe that now the population of the country has increased so it is not possible to conduct elections simultaneously, while other analysts believe that technology and other resources have also developed. Therefore, a country cannot hold an election.
Support
A country in favor of an election is said to be a development oriented idea. Obviously, due to frequent elections, the model code of conduct has to be implemented repeatedly in the country. Due to this, the government is unable to take the necessary policy decisions and faces problems in implementing various schemes. Due to this development work is affected. Let us tell you that the Model Code of Conduct or Model Code of Conduct has been created to maintain the fairness of elections.
Under this, the announcement of a project, the introduction of new schemes or financial approval and appointment process by the ruling party after the election notification is issued by the Election Commission is forbidden. The underlying motive behind this is that the ruling party may not get additional benefits in the election. Therefore, if the elections to the Lok Sabha and the state assemblies are held at once in the country, then the model code of conduct will remain in force for some time, and after this the development works can be completed uninterrupted.
Another argument in favor of one country one election is that it will reduce the huge expenditure incurred in repeated elections. It is worth noting that due to frequent elections, the government treasury has to bear additional economic burden. The continuous increase in expenditure on elections is a proof that it is not good for the economic health of the country.
A third argument in favor of one country one election is said to help in curbing black money and corruption. It is not hidden from anyone that black money is used openly by political parties and candidates during elections. Although the limit for the expenditure incurred by the candidates in elections in the country has been fixed, no limit has been set for the expenditure incurred by political parties. Some analysts believe that by constantly holding elections, politicians and parties get an opportunity to disturb social harmony, due to which circumstances of unnecessary tension are created. Such problems can be overcome by holding elections simultaneously.
The fourth argument in its favor is that holding simultaneous elections will not require the government employees and security forces to be put on electoral duty again and again. This will save their time and they will also be able to follow their duties properly. Let us tell you that the services of teachers and government employees are taken to conduct elections in our country, which affects their work. Not only this, in addition to the large number of police and security forces for conducting uninterrupted elections, the general public life is also affected by repeated elections.
Against
In opposition to one country one election, analysts believe that the Constitution has given us a parliamentary model under which the Lok Sabha and the Legislative Assemblies are elected for five years, but our Constitution is silent on the issue of holding elections simultaneously. There are many provisions in the constitution which seem to contradict this view. For example, under Article 2, a new state can be incorporated into the Indian Union by the Parliament and under Article 3, Parliament can create a new state state, where separate elections have to be held.
Similarly, according to Article 85 (2) (b), the President can dissolve the Lok Sabha and according to Article 174 (2) (b) the Governor can dissolve the Assembly even before five years. Under Article 352, the term of the Lok Sabha can be extended by imposing a national emergency in the event of war, external aggression or armed rebellion. Similarly, President’s Rule can be imposed in the states under Article 356 and in such a situation, there is an increase in the possibility of re-election there due to unexpected reversal in the political equation of the respective state. All these situations are completely opposite of one country one election.
A second argument is made against one country one election, that this idea would be contrary to the federal structure of the country and would be a fatal step for parliamentary democracy. Elections of Lok Sabha and state assemblies will be extended or reduced against the will of some legislatures which may affect the autonomy of the states. India’s federal structure is inspired by parliamentary governance and the frequency of elections in parliamentary governance is an irrefutable fact.
A third argument against one country one election is that if the elections to the Lok Sabha and the state assemblies were held simultaneously, it is more likely that the regional issues become secondary to national issues or vice versa, national issues lose their existence in front of regional issues. Give Actually, the nature and issues of election to Lok Sabha and Legislative Assembly are completely different. While the Lok Sabha elections are held to form the national government, the assembly elections are held to form the state government. Therefore, while issues of national importance are given prominence in the Lok Sabha, there are issues of regional importance in the assembly elections.
The fourth argument against this is that democracy is called the rule of the people. As a parliamentary system in the country, elections are held at different times and public representatives have to be constantly accountable to the people. Apart from this, no party or leader can work in an autocratic manner after winning an election because he has to face some election at small intervals. Analysts believe that if both elections are held simultaneously, the likelihood of this happening will increase.
A fifth argument is made against one country one election, that India is the second largest country in the world in terms of population. Therefore, it does not seem logical to elect the Lok Sabha and the state assemblies together due to the large population and lack of infrastructure.
About Author
