Concern with One Nation, One Election

Source: The post concern with One Nation, One Election has been created, based on the article “Manoj Jha writes: One Nation, One Election undermines the voter — and Indian democracy” published in “Indian Express” on 19th September is 2024

UPSC Syllabus Topic: GS Paper 2- Salient Features of the Representation of People’s Act.

Context: The article argues against the One Nation, One Election idea. It says this plan will harm democracy by concentrating power. It criticizes the government for undermining democratic processes and warns about the negative consequences of synchronized elections.

For detailed information on Need for One Nation Many Election read this article here

What are the Proposed Benefits of One Nation, One Election?

1. Cost Saving: Supporters argue that synchronized elections will save public funds. Reducing frequent elections might lower administrative and logistical costs.
2. Avoiding Model Code of Conduct Delays: The Model Code of Conduct (MCC) slows down governance. If elections are held together, the government can avoid frequent interruptions due to MCC restrictions.
3. Improved Efficiency: Clustering elections together could result in a smoother election process. The article suggests organizing elections in fewer days could solve current inefficiencies, rather than overhauling the system entirely.
4. Political Stability: Simultaneous elections could lead to more political stability by reducing election cycles and allowing governments to focus on governance instead of constant campaigning.

For detailed information on One Nation One Election read this article here

What is the Concern with One Nation, One Election?

1. Concentration of Power: One Nation, One Election can concentrate power with the ruling party, potentially undermining democratic balance.
2. Electoral Bonds: The use of electoral bonds enabled large corporate funding, which skewed elections in favor of the ruling party, contributing to an unfair advantage.
3. Reduced Accountability: Simultaneous elections may lower government accountability, reducing the incentive to engage with citizens between elections and weakening responsiveness.
4. Dominant National Parties: National parties are likely to benefit more from synchronized elections, leaving states potentially stuck with unpopular governments.
5. Costs and Spending: While cost-saving is a key argument, addressing excessive election spending through regulation is a better solution, rather than cutting down on the frequency of elections.

What Does the Election Commission and Supreme Court’s Role Look Like?

1. The Election Commission (EC) has been criticized for inefficiency in managing elections.
2. It claims the Supreme Court has been slow in addressing critical issues like the misuse of agencies and defection cases.
3. Both institutions have been accused of not doing enough to protect democracy, allowing dominant parties to take advantage.

What Should Be Done?

1. Strengthen Electoral Reforms: Instead of pushing for One Nation, One Election, focus on modernizing the Model Code of Conduct (MCC). The Election Commission should plan polling more efficiently, as recent elections stretched over a month.
2. Regulate Election Spending: Rather than cutting corners, address excessive spending during elections. The Election Commission should enforce existing legal spending limits and improve oversight.
3. Cluster State Elections: The Election Commission should group state elections, allowing governance to continue smoothly without constant election disruptions.
4. Enhance Accountability: Ensure governments remain responsive to voters between elections. Continuous engagement and deliberation should be prioritized over simply focusing on election cycles.
5. Avoid Centralizing Power: Ensure that holding synchronized elections does not concentrate power with dominant national parties, risking the suppression of regional voices and democracy.

Question for practice:

Discuss the potential drawbacks of implementing One Nation, One Election and how it could impact democratic processes.