The misplaced move of ‘one nation one election’
For Prelims:
- One Nation, One Election: This concept seeks to synchronize elections across all levels of government, from Lok Sabha to State Assemblies and local bodies.
- High-Level Committee Report: The committee, led by former President Ram Nath Kovind, recommended simultaneous elections to reduce costs and streamline the election process.
- Federalism Challenge: Amendments to the Constitution would be required, notably concerning the tenure of State Assemblies, which might undermine India’s federal structure as highlighted by the Supreme Court's Kesavananda Bharati decision.
For Mains:
-
GS II: Polity and Governance – Federalism and Electoral Reforms
Simultaneous Elections Debate: The editorial critiques the move towards holding simultaneous elections, arguing that it compromises India’s federalism. The fixed tenure of State Assemblies could be curtailed, conflicting with their autonomy. Moreover, the argument that frequent elections disrupt governance due to the Model Code of Conduct lacks empirical support.
-
Economic Considerations: The rationale that simultaneous elections will save enormous amounts of money is scrutinized. The budget allocated to the Election Commission of India (₹466 crore for 2023-24) is not overwhelmingly large. Furthermore, savings from political parties are unlikely to translate into developmental projects.
-
Developmental Impact: Frequent elections are portrayed as not impeding developmental momentum, with past elections proving that governance continues. The piece emphasizes that elections keep politicians accountable, fostering stronger connections with voters.
Highlights of the Article:
-
Federalism and Assembly Tenure: Curtailing State Assemblies' tenure to synchronize with Lok Sabha elections could alter the basic structure of the Constitution, challenging federalism.
-
Accountability of Representatives: Frequent elections force politicians to stay connected with their constituencies, enhancing their accountability to the public.
-
No Significant Financial Burden: The editorial contests the notion that elections are too costly, arguing that the expenses involved do not justify drastic changes in the election schedule.
-
Empirical Evidence Lacking: The argument that simultaneous elections would reduce costs and enhance development lacks concrete evidence from past instances of such elections.
-
Constitutional Amendments: The necessary amendments to implement simultaneous elections would face significant opposition and could be difficult to pass, given the current composition of Parliament.
Context:
The editorial presents a critical analysis of the One Nation, One Election proposal, weighing its potential impact on India's federal structure, political accountability, and governance. The argument reflects on the feasibility and desirability of such a significant change in India's democratic process. It also highlights concerns about the erosion of State autonomy and the importance of electoral frequency for maintaining political engagement and accountability
UPSC EXAM NOTES ANALYSIS
1. Simultaneous Elections
- The concept of holding simultaneous elections for the Lok Sabha, State Assemblies, and local bodies was introduced by the Prime Minister a few years ago. The frequent occurrence of Assembly and local elections often required him to be on the campaign trail across various parts of the country. This likely inspired the idea of consolidating elections into a single event.
- As a result, a high-level committee was established to explore the feasibility of simultaneous elections.
- This committee, chaired by former President Ram Nath Kovind, included key figures such as Home Minister Amit Shah, former Leader of the Opposition in the Rajya Sabha Ghulam Nabi Azad, former Chairman of the Fifteenth Finance Commission N.K. Singh, former Lok Sabha Secretary-General Subhash C. Kashyap, senior advocate Harish Salve, and former Chief Vigilance Commissioner Sanjay Kothari. Additionally, the Minister of State for Law and Justice, Arjun Ram Meghwal, participated as a special invitee.
- The committee submitted its report to the President in March, making its recommendations available before the 2024 general elections.
- The proposal for simultaneous elections was also part of the Bharatiya Janata Party's manifesto for the election. Had the party secured a majority, it could have claimed voter approval for the idea; however, without that majority, such an assumption becomes uncertain.
- Regardless, it is remarkable that the committee managed to produce a comprehensive 18,626-page report in a relatively short time on such a significant issue.
- With the Union Cabinet approving the recommendations, the plan for 'one nation, one election' is now close to implementation. Initially, the plan calls for Lok Sabha and Assembly elections to be held together, with local body elections following within 100 days
- The proposal for simultaneous elections requires changes to several Articles of the Constitution. A key amendment relates to the fixed tenure of State Assemblies, which would no longer remain constant. Since the terms of the Assemblies would need to align with those of the Lok Sabha, the current five-year term guaranteed to State Assemblies under Article 172 would be lost.
- Before delving into the details, it’s important to consider the prospects for the Constitutional amendment Bill that will be introduced in the 18th Lok Sabha for this purpose. Once introduced, the Bill will move to the next critical step—general debate and consideration.
- After the debate, the motion for consideration will be put to a vote, requiring a special majority, which means a majority of the total membership of the House and at least two-thirds of the members present and voting.
- If this motion passes with the necessary special majority, the House will then move to the next stages: clause-by-clause scrutiny and finally passing the Bill. In a full House of 543 members, 362 votes would be required for approval.
- Currently, the ruling National Democratic Alliance has approximately 292 members, leaving a significant gap between this number and the required 362 for a special majority. Given that opposition parties oppose the ‘one nation, one election’ idea, the government is likely to struggle to secure the required majority.
- Thus, the Bill's outcome will likely be determined during the consideration phase itself. The key takeaway is that, without opposition support, it will be nearly impossible to pass any Constitutional amendment Bill in the current Parliament
- The high-level committee has proposed simultaneous elections for two main reasons. First, they argue that combining elections would lead to significant cost savings, as large sums of money are spent on each separate election.
- Holding elections only once every five years, they claim, would result in substantial savings. However, this argument warrants further scrutiny.
- According to Article 324, the Election Commission of India (ECI) manages elections for both Parliament and State legislatures, and the funding for these elections is approved by Parliament as part of the national budget.
- For the 2023-24 fiscal year, ₹466 crore was allocated to the ECI, specifically for the upcoming general election in 2024. By comparison, the previous year's allocation was ₹320 crore. Thus, the ₹466 crore allocated for the general election is not an extraordinarily large amount.
- State governments also incur expenses for the logistical aspects of elections. Under Article 324(6), they are required to provide staff upon the ECI’s request. Section 160 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, allows states to requisition facilities and vehicles for election purposes, and the costs are borne by the states.
- Despite these expenses, the combined costs to both the Union and State governments do not amount to a massive financial burden.
- While political parties do spend exorbitant amounts on elections, the notion that the money saved by holding elections less frequently would be redirected to infrastructure projects like building roads, bridges, or hospitals lacks historical evidence.
- Simultaneous elections were held between 1951 and 1967, yet there is no indication that political parties used any savings from that period for infrastructure development. Therefore, the claim that saved election expenses would fund such projects appears unsupported by facts.
- The second argument for simultaneous elections is that frequent elections hinder government development plans due to the frequent imposition of the Model Code of Conduct.
- However, there is no concrete evidence to back this claim. Elections have been held regularly since 1967 without any observable negative impact on developmental progress.
- In fact, significant government actions, such as the demonetization of 85% of India's currency, took place just before the Uttar Pradesh Assembly elections, demonstrating that governance can continue despite elections
- Shortening the tenure of State Assemblies to align them with the Lok Sabha term undermines federalism. According to the Indian Constitution, State Assemblies function as independent legislative bodies within the federal system, distinct from the central Parliament.
- Maintaining a fixed term for Assemblies, separate from the Lok Sabha, is a crucial element of this federal structure. The Kesavananda Bharati judgment established that Parliament cannot modify the Constitution's basic structure, with federalism being a core component.
- The proposed amendments, which aim to remove the fixed terms of Assemblies, would essentially alter this basic structure. Whether or not these changes require ratification from the Assemblies is secondary. If the amendments are implemented, some Assemblies may have reduced terms of around two or three years.
- Moreover, frequent elections offer numerous advantages. They increase the accountability of elected officials by requiring them to regularly engage with the electorate.
- Holding elections only every five years could lead to representatives becoming disconnected from their constituents, with efforts to reconnect only happening during election campaigns. Similarly, political parties, if not regularly challenged, may become complacent and ineffective in addressing public concerns.
- From a governance perspective, frequent elections provide timely feedback to governments, allowing them to adjust their policies in response to public sentiment.
|
Mains Practice Question
|
