The New Proposal One Nation - One Election against Public Interest?

The Law Commission of India has introduced the concept of 'One Nation - One Election' and has asked various political parties for their views on it.


The Law Commission of India has introduced the concept of 'One Nation - One Election' and encouraged various political parties for their views on it.  However Indian leaders, one of the many pillars of democracy, are know to vote only for their party.  Other elements of the electoral process, namely the Election Commission, the judiciary and most importantly the Indian citizens;    It is important to know the views of all these participants before making any national decision.

Formal Reason

First of all, to understand why the legislature brought this proposal;  It is also important to know why some political parties supported the proposal and why the opponents opposed it. According to the commission, state and central government elections were held simultaneously till the 1970s'.  In fact, the commission is in favour to bring back the same system.  In preparing the final draft of the policy, the Commission has also studied the UK's Fixed Time Parliament Act, 2011. 

The same British law was cited before the Policy Commission endorsed this 'fixed term' principle for the Lok Sabha and the Legislative Assembly. However, it was cumbersome to understand why India was suddenly wants to follow the British rule for a single region.  Because there are numerous other controversial issues, where British law does not seem to the right fit.

The Janata Dal (United), Samajwadi Party and Telangana Rashtra Samiti supported the policy, while Telugu Desam, CPI (M), Trinamool Party and DMK opposed it.  Opponents say the policy is not inclusive and seems.  But like the proposal prepared by the Law Commission without giving proper reasons, this argument also seems absurd to and baseless at multiple levels.

Repetitive authentication can be troublesome

Regardless of the official reference documents, British law alone cannot and should not be the driving force behind this policy. On the contrary, the proposal was made at the behest of the ruling party. The BJP government held elections in 2014 with a majority. It won four times more seats than the largest opposition party. The National Democratic Alliance, which includes its allies, won more than 300 seats. In the next three years, the party gained power in 20 states. 

Till 2014, the BJP had a significant performance in only half a dozen of these states and it was a real victory for them. However, the BJP was defeated in some important states. E.g. Delhi, Bihar, Punjab. To be noted here in some states, they literally struggled to gain power. E.g. Goa, Uttaranchal and Meghalaya. At the same time, the party lost several by-elections, and finally reducing its strength in the Lok Sabha.

After the 2014 general elections, elections were held every year in 3 to 4 states or union territories. As the chief campaigner of his party, the Prime Minister had to visit several constituencies during 2014 election. Therefore, during this campaign, the party had to face questions and debates almost every year about the decision taken at the Center. BJP could not remain silent for five years, until the next general election. 

The emphasis was so strong on denominations, GST, food inflation, farmers' resentment and cow slaughter, it appeared that as if the Prime Minister Modi himself was leading the referendum on these mentioned issues, not the Chief Minister during the concerned state elections. According to the BJP government, if there is a single election for the state and the centre, they might not have to justify and explain their own decisions or action taken.

Regular inspection may help correct the process

This thought process of of ​​the BJP is neither in the favour of the Ruling party nor the Indian citizens. As citizens, we have always witnessed that, the recurring elections have always helped in making better decisions not only at the Center but also in the states. Being politically inconsistent; However, the BJP is making every effort at the Center, TMC in Bengal, TRC in Telangana and TDP in Andhra Pradesh. 

There may be numerous flaws and hiccups in their policies; However policies are not paralysed. The GST Act was initially flawed, which faced strong criticism in the every state election. Thus, regular updated and amendment were introduced into the GST Act, Only few with political propaganda (mostly from the left wing) will deny the fact that it has changed frequently.

Help Leaders Remember their promises to the masses

India is still not recognised as the developed nation (for obvious reasons) or a full democracy at international level. Every developing country faces varied challenges and one of them is to have a good, transparent, efficient and uniform government in the country. However, political leaders corrupt the minds of the masses by their false and ridiculous promises to get into the power. Once elected, their promises and development plan are put on hold until the last year in the power.

These leaders initiate the fulfilment of the their so-called false promises only after the next election or when their term is about to expire or expire. Contrary to this, in developed countries, the laws in these countries are always tougher and less stringent. Politicians and bureaucrats in India unwittingly juggle the the law and easily get away with it because law enforcement can be played around easily.

So those who come to power - be they political leaders, administrators or government servants - are always in power, enjoy the political luxury, abuse their positions. It could be any political party and administrative position. Often these people inadvertently or intentionally go the wrong way. Thus constant refinement and improvement is required for better decisions making, within the national interest.

The only solution is to scrutinize the government's decisions during the five-year state elections.  In developing countries, political accountability is low, and so for political leaders to keep their promises in the future, the only way voters can get them to do things before elections is through.  If this happens only once in five years, then the citizens and alternatively the whole country will have to bear the consequences. Therefore, if elections are held as they are now, it will help bring about reforms in the country.

Post a Comment

Previous Post Next Post