‘one nation one election’ proposal ,

‘one nation one election’ proposal  

The ‘one nation one election’ proposal mooted yet again by the Narendra Modi government is deeply flawed. 

1 The reasons negative headlines about the Prime Minister’s cronyism  / भाई-भतीजावाद and the Chinese President Xi Jinping’s snub to the G-20 summit.

2 India has had either a State or a national election every year for the last 36 years. 

3  This devours enormous financial resources and efforts, and the time of the government and political parties is the seeming concern. 

4 An election held constantly in some part of the country with a ‘model code of conduct’ distracts from governance and leads to policy paralysis. 

Do not conflate these two

 When there is an election in say Bengal

 with the Trinamool Congress, the Congress, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the Left contesting, 

a Tamil Nadu governed by the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam or the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam is not impacted. 

An election in Assam with a model code of conduct does not stop road projects or ‘development’ in Gujarat. So, when there are elections in a few States, ‘India’ is not in an election mode; some of India’s States are. 

pressure of constant elections because municipal or State elections 

The national parties with a Delhi-based high command culture such as the Congress and the BJP are the ones that may feel the pressure of constant elections because municipal or State elections held in any part of the country

 involve their national leadership — especially, when the campaigners-in-chief of the BJP, 

for a local body to a State election held anywhere in the country, also happen to have the important jobs of Prime Minister and Home Minister, 

it can feel like they are being stretched in a ‘permanent campaign’ and sidetracked from governance. 

But if the BJP chooses or wants to fight all elections in the country with the Prime Minister as their campaigner-in-chief and the Home Minister as their sole election in-charge, it is their flaw and not the nation’s problem.

 

Each of India’s States has different political cultures and parties

Why should the basic constitutional structure of the country be changed for two national leaders to help balance their campaign and governance schedules, under the alibi of perennial elections? 

The one election idea is only for the convenience of the BJP’s campaign and smacks of arrogance and ignorance of India’s political diversity. 

Furthermore, this is an attack on and an affront to India’s federalism. 

dissolution of their State legislatures and call for early elections 

Today, an elected Chief Minister of a State has the powers to recommend dissolution of their State legislatures and call for early elections, 

आइये जानते हैं कि किन परिस्तिथियों में विधानसभा को भंग किया जा सकता है;(When can an Legislative Assembly be dissolved)

1. जब राज्य में किसी भी पार्टी को पूर्ण बहुमत नहीं मिलता है और अन्य दलों के नेता मिलकर सरकार नहीं बना पाते हैं तो राज्यपाल विधानसभा को भंग कर देता है.

2. संविधान के अनुच्छेद 356 के अनुसार, यदि एक राज्य सरकार, केंद्र सरकार द्वारा दिए गए निर्देशों के अनुपालन में अपनी कार्यकारी शक्तियों का प्रयोग करने में विफल रहती है या सरकार संविधान के अनुसार बताये गए नियमों का पालन नहीं करती है, तो उस राज्य का राज्यपाल इसकी रिपोर्ट राष्ट्रपति को भेजता है जो कि केन्द्रीय कैबिनेट की परामर्श के अनुसार राज्य में विधान सभा को भंग कर राष्ट्रपति शासन लगा सकता है.

3. यदि राज्य में चल रही गठबंधन सरकार अल्पमत में आ जाती है अन्य दलों के पास सरकार बनाने के लिए जरूरी बहुमत नहीं है तो ऐसी स्थिति में राज्यपाल नए चुनाव कराने के उद्येश्य से राज्य की विधानसभा को भंग कर सकता है.

4. यदि विधानसभा चुनाव अपरिहार्य कारणों (जैसे राज्य का विभाजन, बाहरी आक्रमण इत्यादि) से स्थगित कर दिए गए हैं तो भी राज्यपाल विधानसभा को भंग कर सकता है.

यद्यपि राज्य विधानसभा के विघटन की शक्ति राज्यपाल के पास भी है. हालाँकि राज्यपाल के इस निर्णय को संसद के दोनों सदनों द्वारा 2 महीने के अन्दर अनुमति मिलना जरूरी होता है.

as Telangana Chief Minister K. Chandrashekar Rao (KCR) did in 2018, breaking the cycle of simultaneous State and Parliament elections in the State.

 Under a ‘one election’ framework, KCR will not have the right to do this. 

Why should these powers be taken away from the States and only the Union government have the powers to dictate the election schedule for every State? 

Misleading arguments

in support of the idea 

Yet another misleading argument put forth in support of the idea is that between 1951-52 and 1967, India had simultaneous elections / one election system , and hence it is appropriate to revert to that system.

 this was possible

all States started off the block at the same time and had stable tenures in the first two decades after Independence.

regional parties mushroomed over the last six decades to govern various States as per their own election schedules as the State’s politics warranted. 

Cost savings is the other reason 

cited for a concurrent elections proposal, something that even knowledgeable political commentators fall for but one that is deceptive.

per voter per year 

Various estimates by the Election Commission, NITI Aayog and the government show that the costs of conducting all State and parliamentary elections in a five-year cycle work out to the equivalent of ₹10 per voter per year. 

The NITI Aayog report has also said that when elections are synchronised, it will cost the equivalent of ₹5 per voter per year. 

If any, in the short term, simultaneous elections will increase the costs for

•  deploying  larger numbers of electronic voting machines and 
• 
  
• control units. 

‘Central Vista’ in Delhi 

The government could have saved that amount just by not building the grand ‘Central Vista’ in Delhi.

 

Political parties / candidates may spending 

  

1 Political parties / candidates may spend a lot more money on elections than the government but that is not the tax-payers’ money. 

2 benifit ? such election spending by parties and candidates actually benefits the economy and the government’s tax revenues by boosting private consumption and serving as a stimulus.

A single election calendar may work

in a presidential system where the survival of the executive is not dependent upon a legislative majority. 

In India’s parliamentary democracy, this is ipso facto a non-starter and one should not be wasting the nation’s time deliberating on this.

Unitarism in the form of efficiency

‘One nation one election’ is a politically unfeasible, administratively unworkable and constitutionally unviable proposition. 

It is nothing but a deliberate ploy of the Narendra Modi government to move the headlines away from cronyism and China. 

 

The real implicit message underlying the Modi government’s ‘one election’ distraction is the clear ideological divide in Indian politics today — the BJP’s “India is a uniform nation and polity” versus the INDIA alliance’s “India is a union of diverse states and polities”. 

Those of us who believe in the real India will never seek to shoehorn it into a deranged fantasy of unitarism dressed up as efficiency.

source the hindu