ONE NATION-ONE VOTE
The concept of holding elections of both state and the central legislature is not new for the Indian polity. It echos due to prime minister emphasis on this and called an all-party meet to discuss the issue. The basic reason cited is the huge expenditure from the exchequer, party expenses, and candidate expenses.
Besides on the expenses side, it is also mentioned the use of machinery and involvement of administrative people in election cost the development work of the society.
Why country hold election simultaneously
Holding elections at particular date save the country’s resources and these can be used in better possible ways. There is much reason cited for this:-
- Save Public Money
- Reduce the burden on security personnel and administrative staff
- Ensure timely completion of public policies
- Provide impetus to development work
Every state in the country faces model code of conduct at least twice every five years this stall the functioning of government as they will not be able to take new development work. Security personnel and administrative staff remain busy in elections so they are not able to focus on their key areas if elections are held together it saves all these resources and improve the functioning of government in power. Cost of election is increasing day by day for the election commission and also for the political parties, holding elections save a huge amount of money from exchequer and also party and leader expenses.
Why a country should not hold elections simultaneously
Holding elections together for state and center in such a parliamentary structure is a mammoth exercise. The idea is not supportive as it harms the federal structure of the country which is very well defined in our constitution. Article 82 and Article 173 provides for a term of five years for the legislature from its first seating for the center and state assembly respectively. It always keeps the legislature in the hung state as whenever government at center dissolves, state assembly automatically get dissolved for fresh elections. And what about when state assembly gets dissolved, are they under president rule for their remaining term or elections are held for the whole country.
Another very important and dangerous outcome of this is that the party which enjoys the support of majority population will be elected both at the center and state due to influence on people and voting behavior is inclined toward only one party. For instance, 31 times elections are held simultaneously and 27 times the same party came to power. Accountability of political parties and leaders towards the public is shadowed as they come for a vote only once in five years and they are not equally held accountable for state and center work. They (political leaders) are less answerable to questions of the public. The local issue got dumped in front of bigger central issues. This harm the federalism.
Local issue shadow in the light of the national issue and local parties will not able to face the national issue. local issues and local parties will definitely out of the race.
Way Forward
- It is not advisable to address the only cost of elections. One cannot just frame its view by keeping the cost of elections
- Holding simultaneous elections huge expenditure on election machinery.
- This requires the mammoth exercise of framing body.
- While deciding the course of the simultaneous election, it is necessary to keep in mind the diverse condition of state and constitution.
- Federalism should not be harmed
- The benefit of public and state at large kept in mind.
- Constitutional amendments are required in many areas.
i think there are more pros than cons…
your mentioned cons are not at par