By Our Reporter
SHILLONG, Oct 18: The ‘One Nation, One Election’, which is a recent recommendation by the former President Ram Nath Kovind-led high-level committee to hold simultaneous elections to the Lok Sabha and all state legislative assemblies in India, was a major focus of discussion during a debate competition at North-Eastern Hill University, Shillong, on Friday.
According to a statement here, the debate competition, organised on the topic ‘One Nation, One Election’, featured teams from each department, with participants taking positions both for and against the motion.
The arguments in favour of ‘One Nation, One Election’ highlighted several key points.
During the competition, proponents emphasised that synchronising the elections could streamline the electoral process, reduce costs associated with conducting multiple elections, and allow for a more efficient allocation of resources towards pressing issues.
They argued that this approach could enhance voter turnout, improve the management of electoral processes, and minimise the time spent on elections.
With many states beginning to acknowledge the potential benefits of this initiative, supporters insisted that a unified election system would better serve the nation.
Similarly, the participants against the motion raised significant concerns regarding the implications of implementing such an electoral mechanism.
They argued that local issues would be overshadowed by broader national problems, which, they argued, could lead to a lack of attention to grassroots governance.
They stated that concentrating power within a single election cycle could favour the ruling party, diminishing democratic fairness and risking a shift towards a more dictatorial governance style.
They also contended that each state should retain the right to conduct its own elections at its own pace, ensuring that local voices are adequately represented in legislative processes.
“Throughout the debate, various points were raised regarding the logistical and financial implications of a unified election system. Proponents asserted that conducting elections separately for different levels of government leads to inefficiencies, burdening civil servants and disrupting educational institutions. However, the counterarguments were equally compelling. Opponents argued that the ‘One Nation, One Election’ policy posed a direct threat to federalism and contradicted constitutional principles. The confusion among local voters, who may struggle to navigate simultaneous elections, was highlighted as a significant concern. Additionally, they pointed to the financial implications of managing electronic voting machines (EVMs), including potential mishandling costs and the risk of marginalising smaller parties in a centralized electoral process,” the statement said.
The debate concluded with an open house session, during which the audience contended that the model code of conduct (MCC), while restrictive, is designed to ensure that local issues remain prioritised and that projects can be completed within the electoral timeframe.