1. "One Nation, One Election" – A Critical Analysis
Introduction
The concept of “One Nation, One Election” (simultaneous elections) refers to conducting elections for the Lok Sabha, state legislative assemblies, and local bodies simultaneously across the country. This idea, recently brought forward by the government, seeks to reduce the frequency of elections and the associated costs. However, critics argue that this move could harm India’s federal structure and democratic processes.
- Constitutional Amendments Required:
- Simultaneous elections require major amendments to several Articles of the Constitution.
- Key Amendments:
- Article 172: To align the terms of the state assemblies with the Lok Sabha.
- Article 83: Related to the tenure of the Lok Sabha.
- Challenges: Without a two-thirds majority in both Houses of Parliament, passing such constitutional amendments would be difficult, especially with opposition parties raising concerns.
- Arguments in Favor:
- Cost Saving: One major argument in favor of simultaneous elections is the potential reduction in election expenditure.
- For instance, the Election Commission’s 2022-23 budget was Rs 4,326 crore, and the cost for conducting the general elections is estimated at Rs 8,000 crore.
- Reduced Administrative Burden: It is argued that holding elections every five years would reduce the frequent use of government machinery and security forces.
- Cost Saving: One major argument in favor of simultaneous elections is the potential reduction in election expenditure.
- Counter-Arguments:
- Harm to Federalism:
- India’s state assemblies function independently and address state-specific issues. Simultaneous elections could erode the importance of state governance and undermine federalism.
- Logistical and Practical Issues:
- Curtailing or extending the terms of existing state assemblies would require significant adjustments.
- For example, the Uttar Pradesh Assembly nearly concluded its term during the demonetization period, indicating how frequent elections allow better accountability.
- Democratic Disruption:
- Elections are a tool for citizens to hold their governments accountable. Frequent elections encourage political parties to remain responsive to the needs of the electorate.
- Harm to Federalism:
- Political and Legal Complexities:
- Passing the necessary amendments would require mobilizing a special majority, which may be difficult given the lack of consensus between the ruling party and opposition parties.
- Additionally, curtailing or extending the terms of the assemblies raises questions about citizens’ democratic rights.
- Federalism vs. Centralization:
- The proposal to synchronize state and national elections would shift focus away from state-specific governance, moving towards a more centralized system.
- Regional autonomy could be undermined, with state-specific issues potentially sidelined in the face of broader national narratives.
Conclusion
Simultaneous elections may appear beneficial in terms of reducing costs and increasing administrative efficiency, but the risks to India’s federal structure, democratic processes, and regional representation make the move highly problematic. The preservation of India’s diverse and federal political system should be prioritized over the logistical convenience of simultaneous elections.
Mains Practice Question:
|
Q: “The proposal for ‘One Nation, One Election’ seems to favor efficiency but risks undermining the federal structure and democracy of India.” Critically analyze. (250 words)
|
2. Critical Analysis of the Global Nuclear Disarmament Efforts and the TPNW
Introduction
- International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons: Observed on September 26, marked by discussions at the United Nations (UN) General Assembly.
- Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW): Commonly called the Ban Treaty, which complements but is distinct from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).
- The Ban Treaty serves as a call to the global community to pursue the total elimination of nuclear weapons, a goal that has grown urgent due to geopolitical divisions and ongoing conflicts.
Key Features of the Ban Treaty (TPNW)
- Came into force in 2021 and is notable for prohibiting:
- Development, testing, production, stockpiling, transfer, and use of nuclear weapons.
- Assisting or encouraging the development or use of nuclear weapons.
- While extensive in its prohibitions, major nuclear powers, including India, have not joined the treaty.
- The Ban Treaty stands apart from the NPT, which focuses on nuclear disarmament, non-proliferation, and peaceful nuclear energy use but still allows for deterrence.
Global Scenario of Nuclear Disarmament
- Nuclear Deterrence:
- Many nuclear-armed nations, including India, rely on the concept of deterrence for national security.
- The deterrence doctrine remains strong, as seen in global reactions to conflicts like the Russia-Ukraine war and other geopolitical tensions.
- Global Polarization:
- Countries like China and Russia have opposed the TPNW. China’s stance of “friendship without limits” with Russia underlines the delicate global nuclear balance.
- S. signaling remains vague, indicating that nuclear deterrence remains a pillar of defense policy, even when condemning specific nuclear adventurism.
- Opposition to the Ban Treaty:
- States with nuclear weapons and their allies, including NATO members, have opposed the treaty, reinforcing their reliance on nuclear deterrence.
- Despite this opposition, advocates view the treaty as a moral and legal foundation for a nuclear-free world.
India’s Position
- India has not signed the TPNW nor has it undermined it. India remains committed to the NPT’s goal of nuclear disarmament while balancing the need for deterrence.
- India believes that the NPT has enabled global reductions in nuclear stockpiles, but it does not view the TPNW as a practical solution without the involvement of major nuclear powers.
Recent Developments
- Geopolitical Tensions: Russia’s nuclear rhetoric in the Ukraine conflict, China’s modernization of its nuclear arsenal, and Iran’s uranium enrichment have all sparked concerns about nuclear proliferation.
- Sabre-rattling by nuclear-armed states undermines disarmament efforts and makes the global security situation precarious.
Conclusion
- While the TPNW lacks a strong enforcement mechanism, it plays a critical role in delegitimizing nuclear weapons and questioning the efficacy of nuclear deterrence.
- Future of Disarmament: For real progress, the global community must integrate the TPNW’s moral and normative goals with practical policies that encourage disarmament while ensuring global security.
Mains Practice Question:
|
Q: “The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) offers a legal framework for global nuclear disarmament, yet faces opposition from major nuclear powers. Critically analyze the effectiveness of this treaty in the context of global security.” (250 words)
|
