Bengaluru
The proposed One Nation, One Election concept, currently under discussion by the central government, has drawn mixed reactions from sociologists, activists, and legal experts, sparking a lively debate on its feasibility and implications. Prof. Muzaffar Assadi of Mysore University voiced his concerns, expressing regret that former President Ram Nath Kovind had been tasked with reviewing the idea. He argued that this concept, aimed at reducing election costs and saving time by synchronizing the voting process for MPs and MLAs across India, comes with significant risks. The potential drawback, according to Assadi, is that if an anti-people government were to come to power, citizens would have to endure its decisions for five years. He also raised concerns about the potential erosion of diversity, state autonomy, multiple representation, and the core of India’s electoral system. H. Kantharaju, former Chairman of the Karnataka State Backward Classes Commission, shared Assadi’s apprehensions, seeing the proposal as an attack on the federal structure of the country. He stressed the need for a comprehensive discussion before any decision is made, emphasizing the importance of upholding the constitutional provisions that accommodate India’s unique diversity. In contrast, Senior Legal Adviser of the Supreme Court, MT Nanaiah, expressed support for the ‘One Nation, One Election’ concept. While the proposal has sparked passionate debates, it remains a topic of ongoing discussion, with varying opinions on its potential impact and whether it aligns with India’s complex and diverse political landscape. The concept’s future will depend on the outcomes of these deliberations and the government’s decision on its implementation.
