Advocating the implementation of the "One Nation, One
Election" system in Bharat is a complex task, as it involves
considering various aspects of this proposed electoral reform. While the idea
of holding simultaneous elections for both the Lok Sabha (the lower house of
Bharat's parliament) and state legislative assemblies has garnered attention
and support from some quarters, it also faces significant challenges and
concerns that need careful consideration.
The concept of "One Nation, One Election"
envisions a single electoral cycle where elections for the Lok Sabha and state
legislative assemblies occur simultaneously, potentially reducing the frequency
of elections and the associated financial burdens on the nation. This idea has
been advocated for several reasons, including cost-saving, administrative
efficiency, and the promotion of a stable and continuous governance agenda.
However,
for Bharat it is not a new concept, in the past immediately after getting
independence and After the Constitution was adopted in 1950, polls to the
Lok Sabha and all state assemblies were held simultaneously every five years between 1951
and 1967. Bharat voted simultaneously for the Centre and states in 1952, 1957,
1962 and 1967.
So,
those who are talking about challenges must see the things happening in the
past when things were not what we have today.
One of
the primary arguments in favor of "One Nation, One Election"
is the potential cost savings it can offer. Bharat conducts elections at
various levels—Lok Sabha elections, state assembly elections, and local
government elections. These elections involve enormous expenditures on
security, logistics, campaign financing, and administrative arrangements.
Holding multiple elections in a year or across several years strains the financial
resources of the government and political parties alike. By consolidating these
elections into a single cycle, it is argued that significant financial
resources could be saved, which could then be redirected towards more pressing
national priorities such as healthcare, education, and infrastructure
development.
To
comprehend the financial implications of this proposal, it is essential to
analyze the colossal costs involved in conducting elections in Bharat.
The expenses include printing ballot papers, deploying security forces,
transportation and logistics, setting up polling stations, voter awareness
campaigns, and various other election-related activities. By holding
elections for the Lok Sabha and state assemblies simultaneously, a substantial
portion of these costs, such as security deployment and logistics, could be
shared, leading to a more efficient allocation of resources. Additionally, the
reduction in the number of election campaigns within a year could potentially
lower campaign-related expenditures, making the political process more
cost-effective.
Moreover,
the current practice of staggered elections creates a constant state
of electioneering and political polarization in the country. Parties
and politicians are often in perpetual campaign mode, diverting their attention
and resources away from governance and policy-making. This continuous election
cycle can hinder the effective implementation of policies and reforms. By
adopting "One Nation, One Election," the nation can
potentially free itself from this cycle of perpetual campaigning, allowing
elected representatives to focus on their core responsibilities
of governance, legislating, and addressing the needs of the people.
Another
advantage of "One Nation, One Election" is the potential
for improved governance and policy continuity. Frequent elections
often lead to policy discontinuity as incoming governments may reverse or alter
the policies of their predecessors. This can result in a lack of long-term
planning and the inability to execute comprehensive policy agendas.
Simultaneous elections can provide more stability in governance, as elected
representatives, both at the national and state levels, can serve their terms
without the constant threat of early dissolution.
Additionally,
the current system of staggered elections can sometimes lead to
disruptions in governance when the ruling party in a state calls for early
elections, diverting attention from important matters to political campaigns. By
synchronizing elections, such disruptions could be minimized, allowing
governments to focus on their responsibilities without undue political
interference.
While
these potential benefits of "One Nation, One Election" are
compelling, it is essential to acknowledge the various challenges and concerns
associated with its implementation. One of the primary challenges is the need
for constitutional amendments. The Bharatiyan Constitution provides for staggered
elections to the Lok Sabha and state assemblies to ensure the federal nature of
the country's democracy. Altering this arrangement would require careful
consideration of federalism and the representation of states in the nation's
governance.
Additionally,
logistical challenges cannot be underestimated. Organizing simultaneous
elections across the vast and diverse Bharatn landscape is a complex task.
Ensuring the efficient deployment of security forces, managing polling
stations, and conducting voter awareness campaigns on such a massive scale
would require meticulous planning and coordination.
Another
concern is the potential impact on regional parties. Simultaneous
elections could favor national parties over regional ones, as voters may be
more likely to align their choices at the national and state levels when
elections are held concurrently. This could affect the political landscape by
diminishing the influence of regional parties, which often play a crucial role
in representing the specific interests and concerns of their states.
Furthermore,
the success of "One Nation, One Election" depends on electoral
reforms that address issues like campaign finance, political transparency, and
the role of money in politics. Without these reforms, the proposed system may
not achieve its intended goals of reducing the overall cost of elections and
promoting cleaner politics.
Main
Hurdles in implementation:
Political Willpower of the Opposition: Parties including the Congress, Samajwadi Party, Trinamool Congress, NCP, RJD, AAP, and alliance members of I.N.D.I.A. are not aligned with the concept. They hold differing opinions, but what is more significant is the issue of their willpower, which is causing them to be indifferent to the idea.
Setback to Regional Parties: The "One Nation, One Election" concept might pose some challenges to regional parties, as they would need to consolidate their strategies to please local voters. One major concern is that they may lag behind in terms of campaigns compared to the considerable influence of national parties in their marketing and public relations efforts.
Impeachment will harm itself: Many regional parties are concerned about the alleged impeachment of a specific caste, religion, or region, as they fear that holding the same elections will diminish their influence. They worry about not only losing their traditional voters but also facing challenges from national parties, particularly the Bharatiya Janata Party. This party is likely to appeal to and sway minority and OBC voters in their direction. The parties that heavily favor Muslims will face significant threats and believe that appeasing Muslims will determine their political fate.
In my
view, advocating for "One Nation, One Election" in Bharat is a
multifaceted endeavor that requires a balanced assessment of its potential
benefits and challenges. While the idea of cost-saving, administrative
efficiency, and policy continuity is attractive, it must be approached
cautiously, considering the complexities of Bharat's federal structure,
logistical requirements, and the need for broader electoral reforms.
A
comprehensive and inclusive dialogue involving all stakeholders, including
political parties, constitutional experts, and civil society, is necessary to
evaluate the feasibility and desirability of this electoral reform. Ultimately,
any decision to implement "One Nation, One Election" should
prioritize the strengthening of Bharat's democracy, the protection of
federalism, and the improvement of governance for the benefit of its citizens.
If the government machinery possesses such coordination and can logistically manage the enormous task of "One Nation, One Election," then it would be the best option. This is because it would save millions of dollars that the Government of Bharat currently invests in various elections and the continuous state of readiness for these elections. The money saved could be used for the welfare of states and to propel the country further along the path of development.
The Country should always come first, and as citizens, we should prioritize its well-being
(Writen by Baalwant Singh Raana)
