On the 75th anniversary of India’s Constitution, the Modi government introduced the ‘One Nation, One Election’ bill in the Lok Sabha following a debate. The bill received 269 votes in favor and 198 against. During the session, Home Minister Amit Shah stated that Prime Minister Modi recommended the bill be sent to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) for further discussion. The opposition criticized the bill, arguing it undermines the Constitution and federal structure of the country. Congress highlighted that the government lacks the necessary majority to pass the bill.
The 129th Amendment Bill proposes synchronized elections for the Lok Sabha, state assemblies, and Union Territories. A committee led by former President Ram Nath Kovind had previously submitted a report on this issue, naming it ‘One Nation, One Election.’
The bill amends three sections of the Constitution and introduces a new provision, effectively abolishing the five-year term guarantee for the Lok Sabha and state assemblies. The President will set election dates, aligning state assembly terms with the completion of the Lok Sabha’s tenure. This adjustment shortens the assembly terms, which critics argue infringes on the rights of state legislatures and threatens the concept of federalism.
Undermining the Five-Year Tenure
One of the amendments stipulates that if the Lok Sabha or an assembly dissolves before completing its term, elections will be held for the remaining duration. For example, if the Lok Sabha dissolves after three years, the next election will elect members for the remaining two years, rather than a full five-year term. This contradicts the core principles of parliamentary democracy and negatively impacts the federal structure by undermining state autonomy.
BJP’s Rationale for One Nation, One Election
Elections are held frequently across India, a hallmark of the nation’s vibrant democracy. However, the BJP views this as a flaw rather than a strength, arguing that constant elections disrupt development, drain resources, and burden governance. Prime Minister Modi advocates for synchronized elections every five years to reduce costs and enhance efficiency.
While unified elections may streamline processes, critics argue that local issues drive state elections, making them distinct from national elections. BJP leaders claim that frequent polls lead to administrative standstills due to the Model Code of Conduct, diverting leaders from governance to electioneering.
The Reality of Development
The BJP’s argument that staggered elections hinder development is not entirely valid. True development is measured by improvements in living standards, income, education, healthcare, clean water, and nutrition areas often neglected. Instead, governments focus on infrastructure, while diverting public attention to divisive issues of caste, religion, and regionalism.
Historical Context
India held simultaneous elections until 1967, following the vision of the Constitution’s framers. However, the political landscape shifted with the rise of non-Congress governments in the late 1960s, causing premature dissolutions and staggered elections. The Election Commission recommended synchronized elections in 1983, and the Law Ministry echoed this in 1999.
Challenges to Consensus
Despite BJP’s push, achieving consensus on this issue remains challenging. The ruling party’s authoritarian tendencies and strained relations with opposition parties have eroded trust. Regional parties resist the proposal, fearing diminished influence and weakened federalism.
The Threat to Democracy
Critics argue that One Nation, One Election consolidates power in the hands of the ruling party, enabling manipulation through propaganda and communal polarization. By aligning parliamentary and state elections, the BJP could secure sweeping victories, silencing dissent and marginalizing regional voices.
Conclusion
One Nation, One Election risks diluting India’s democratic essence. Frequent elections serve as a crucial feedback mechanism, allowing citizens to hold governments accountable. Consolidating elections may streamline governance but risks fostering authoritarianism. India must prioritize democratic principles over administrative convenience to preserve its diverse and pluralistic fabric.
COMMENTS