Prime Minister Narendra Modi has revived his calls for simultaneous national, state, and local elections. Saying that “one nation, one election” is not “just a matter of discussion“.
The debate on this issue is unlikely to support the prime minister’s position. This is why he declared it a “state need” without evidence of such a need. Moreover, the Prime Minister’s ideological affinity with the adage. “One nation, one all” appears to have no reason to undertake such an act.
You may also read Stone Cold Steve Austin has its own multi-millionaire empire
The Prime Minister provided two justifications:
First, that multiple elections are expensive, and that holding elections at the same time makes them cheaper. Second, “frequent” elections mean that a model code of conduct (MCC) is often introduced.
Data do not support this justification. However, it is more important to understand the basic premise of what the Prime Minister said. That constitutional principlesand democratic norms depend on money and ease of administration.
If this premise is extended, should an independent court be rejected? Because it is too expensive to build a courthouse or pay judges‘ salaries? Should police officers’ recruitment and training be abolished because of the constitutional obligation? To protect life and property proves too costly?
Many countries have healthy rural groups. Including the Jats, Patels, and Marathas, to capitalize on reservations. Either by facing groups with existing quotas or by challenging the Supreme Court’s 50% limit on reservations.
With basic secularism facing a crisis of belief, those who suffer the most are Muslims. They seem to be looking for alternatives that go beyond stereotypes and mistaken definitions of secularism.
Even though India is a lesser state bordering the Brahmaputra, it is not completely at a disadvantage. Since 56% of Jarlung Tsangpo / Brahmaputra flows into Chinese territory.
This can easily be confused with the assumption that China controls most of the waters. However, the volume of the Yarlung Tsangpo / Brahmaputra is not proportional to its internal length.
Parliamentary democracy, like federalism, is part of the basic structure of the Constitution:
The most important aspect of parliamentary democracy is that the elected law is divided. The current government is valid as long as it has a majority in the legislature.
In other words, parliamentary democracy is supported by-elections with a time limit. Regardless of how much they costand whether they are in line with other state elections.
Likewise, the Constitution distinguishes between the institutions. In which the state is empowered to enact laws or administer without central interference.
State governments function not to the Union government’s satisfaction but on behalf of the state legislatures. If state parliaments don’t overthrow the government, the Constitution offers a simple solution to this instability – re-election. It is unfair for voters to wait for the government.
The Prime Minister is also seeking to include local elections within the scope of his proposal. By the states and established differently in different states.
The Constitution only empowers state legislators to enact laws on “local government” matters. By state electoral commissions independent of India’s Election Commission. The main assumption is that the complexity of the elections requires a separate administrative mechanism and special oversight.
History also offers lessons. India was the first country in the world that did not gradually expand franchising. But adopted universal adult franchising’s egalitarian principles.
Many Constituent Assembly members are skeptical of universal adult suffrage and what that means in a country. Where most of its citizens are poor, illiterate, and have little experience with the official institutions of democracy.
You may also read The planet, named Gliese 486b, has a mass of 2.8 occasions that of Earth
India held its first elections, as soon as its Constitution adopted.
It is inconceivable that our founders would limit franchising simply because it was too expensive or impractical. Even though the young republic is still shaking.
From the horrors of division and recently waging its first war with Pakistan. As a result, India held elections simultaneously despite the financial crisis, war, armed unrest, and general pogroms.
If administrative convenience and financial expediency were not an issue, that would not be a valid justification in New India.
Modi has repeatedly called the customer center a barrier to continued growth. This is not true at all. MCC does not prohibit development or routine activities.
Modi claims that India, persistently in “electoral mode,” has hindered development efforts. It is not all countries that are constantly under electoral regimes.
But the prime ministers, trade union ministers, and other “national leaders” of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Their urge to crawl into local elections has also caused this political paralysis.