Fixed Legislative Tenure
The Bill proposes a fixed five-year term for both the Lok Sabha and State Legislatures.
If a legislature is dissolved early, mid-term elections will be held only for the remaining duration of the term.
Impact on Governance and Accountability
The Bill's claim to reduce electoral costs is disputed, as political parties still bear the majority of election-related expenses.
Regular elections are seen as promoting political accountability by forcing representatives to stay engaged with their electorate.
Federalism Concerns
Aligning State Assembly terms with the Lok Sabha is seen as potentially weakening the autonomy of State legislatures and undermining federalism.
However, the approach is argued to standardize election dates without diminishing federal principles, as voters can still make separate choices for the State and Central governments.
Impact on Political Stability
The fixed-term proposal may limit political flexibility during crises, especially if mid-term elections result in shorter terms for legislatures.
While mid-term elections are seen as a solution to government instability, they could also lead to incomplete terms and hinder effective governance.
Handling Political Exigencies
The Bill’s rigid structure could limit the ability to address political instability that often requires dissolution for fresh mandates.
However, the Bill does allow mid-term elections, ensuring that political deadlocks or changes in majority can be addressed, even if it results in shorter tenures.
Lessons from Global Models
The concept of a "constructive vote of no-confidence" has been debated but deemed unsuitable for India's political system.
Unlike the UK's Fixed-term Parliaments Act, which guarantees a full five-year term, this Bill offers a maximum term with the flexibility of mid-term elections to maintain accountability.
COMMENTS