The debate around “One Nation, One Election” revolves around synchronizing national and state elections to streamline the electoral process, reduce costs, and limit disruptions. While proponents argue it increases efficiency, some critics, including political commentator Karan Thapar, suggest it could potentially restrict democracy.
Source:- bbc News
At its core, democracy thrives on the principle of frequent and timely elections, allowing citizens to express their political will regularly. One of the key criticisms of this proposal is that it might limit this vital function. Thapar points out that if elections are held simultaneously, the electorate may not differentiate between national and local issues, potentially overshadowing regional concerns with national narratives. State governments, whose policies directly impact citizens on a day-to-day basis, may lose the platform to be held accountable in distinct elections. Voters may be swayed by national leadership, ignoring the specific performance of state governments.
Source:- news 18
Moreover, elections serve as a critical check on government power. Regular elections at different times ensure continuous accountability, preventing governments from becoming complacent or authoritarian. One Nation, One Election might reduce this check, as governments would have a fixed term without mid-term evaluations through electoral mandates.
Thapar also questions the practicality of the proposal. India’s vast political landscape is marked by regional diversity, and synchronizing elections could create logistical challenges. It could also lead to political instability if, for example, a state government falls before the end of its term.
In conclusion, while One Nation, One Election aims to enhance efficiency, Karan Thapar’s concerns highlight that it risks undermining the principles of federalism and regular democratic accountability, both crucial pillars of Indian democracy.
Share your views in the comments
