Editorial #1 Let’s talk about ‘one candidate, multiple constituencies’
The concept of ‘One Candidate, Multiple Constituencies’ (OCMC) has been a significant yet largely overlooked issue in Indian electoral politics. It has become a matter of considerable concern due to its implications on the efficiency of elections, financial burden on the public, and the overall health of democracy. The issue became especially prominent after the recommendations of the Ram Nath Kovind panel on One Nation, One Election, which sought to address systemic concerns related to the conduct of elections in India. However, an important issue—regarding the restriction on candidates contesting from multiple constituencies—has largely remained outside the focus of public discourse and political debates.
Background & Challenges:
The Constitution of India, under Article 324, empowers Parliament to regulate the conduct of elections. The Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RP Act, 1951) initially allowed candidates to contest from multiple constituencies without any restrictions until 1996. This practice led to widespread issues such as frequent by-elections, with candidates vacating multiple constituencies they won, leaving those constituencies to undergo by-polls. By-elections are costly, both for the government and political parties, and add a significant financial burden on taxpayers. The 1996 amendment, however, limited the number of constituencies a candidate could contest from to two, in an attempt to curb this practice.
Despite the legislative restriction, the OCMC practice has persisted, particularly in State Legislative Assembly elections, leading to a spate of by-elections. The implications are far-reaching:
- Financial Burden: By-elections are expensive, costing the public significantly in terms of administrative resources and funding, estimated at ₹6,931 crore for the 2024 general elections, with an additional ₹130 crore from each candidate contesting from multiple constituencies. Moreover, political parties contribute massively, largely funded by black money, further weakening financial transparency.
- Skewed Electoral Competition: The frequent by-elections resulting from OCMC lead to a non-level playing field, with ruling parties often having an advantage due to better resource mobilization and patronage. This reduces competition and undermines parliamentary democracy.
- Conflict with Democratic Principles: The notion of “One Person, One Vote” implies that voters elect representatives based on trust. OCMC contravenes this principle, creating voter confusion and discontent, as seen in instances like Rahul Gandhi vacating his Wayanad seat, contributing to voter apathy. OCMC also infringes upon the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a), undermining the people’s ability to hold their representatives accountable.
- Undermines Legislative Accountability: OCMC reflects a leader-centric approach, especially in family-dominated or party-dominated structures. It prioritizes the political leader’s interests over those of the electorate, contributing to a leader-centric democracy, where the focus is more on the personality than the public welfare.
Some Advantages:
While the practice of OCMC has significant drawbacks, it has been defended on some grounds:
- Safety Net for Candidates: In highly competitive and contested elections, contesting multiple constituencies offers candidates a safety net, ensuring that they remain elected regardless of outcomes in specific constituencies.
- Leader-Centric Parties: In India’s context, where politics is often centered around charismatic leaders, OCMC helps smooth transitions for leaders, particularly when dominant political parties secure majorities but the leader faces challenges in specific constituencies.
However, these advantages do not outweigh the systemic issues raised by OCMC.
International Experience:
The issue of OCMC is not unique to India. Countries like Pakistan and Bangladesh allow candidates to contest multiple constituencies but require them to vacate all but one. In contrast, European democracies like the UK have banned the practice since 1983, emphasizing clearer representation and accountability.
Proposed Reforms:
To mitigate the negative impacts of OCMC, several reforms have been suggested:
- Amend Section 33(7) of the RP Act, 1951: To ban candidates from contesting from multiple constituencies.
- Cost Recovery for By-elections: Recovering the costs of by-elections from the candidates who vacate constituencies.
- Postponing By-elections: Holding by-elections a year later, giving voters sufficient time to make informed decisions and reducing the frequency of costly by-elections.
Ultimately, while reforms like One Nation, One Election have gathered political support, addressing OCMC remains challenging due to its political ramifications. Yet, if One Person, One Vote is a fundamental democratic principle, it is imperative to adopt One Candidate, One Constituency to ensure fair and accountable elections.
Value addition
“A democracy cannot function without transparency and accountability, both of which are compromised by frequent by-elections caused by OCMC.” – Ram Nath Kovind, Former President of India
This quote highlights the erosion of democratic values due to practices like OCMC.
Editorial #2 India’s firmer attempts at mineral diplomacy
India’s strategic efforts in mineral diplomacy are becoming increasingly crucial as the country strives to expand its manufacturing and technological capabilities. With a growing dependence on critical minerals—vital for sectors like electronics, defense, clean energy, and infrastructure—India faces a challenge of ensuring a consistent and secure supply. Given its reliance on imports, primarily from China, India’s vulnerability to external influences has become a significant strategic concern. Union Defence Minister Rajnath Singh highlighted this concern, emphasizing that the weaponization of resources for strategic reasons is a relatively new phenomenon, specifically pointing to China’s attempts to control critical mineral supply chains. In response, India has intensified its mineral diplomacy to enhance its resource security.
Strategic Initiatives and Partnerships
India’s mineral diplomacy revolves around two main pillars: (1) fostering bilateral and multilateral partnerships with resource-rich countries and intergovernmental organizations, and (2) establishing cooperative engagements with global initiatives focused on critical minerals.
- Bilateral and Multilateral Engagements:
India has sought to establish strategic partnerships with mineral-producing nations such as Australia, the United States, Russia, Kazakhstan, and Latin American countries like Argentina, Bolivia, and Chile. In particular, India’s state-owned entity, Khanij Bidesh India Ltd. (KABIL), was established post-2019 to ensure a consistent supply of critical and strategic minerals through government-to-government, government-to-business, and business-to-business routes. For example, in March 2022, KABIL signed a critical mineral investment partnership with Australia for lithium and cobalt projects. Similarly, India’s involvement with Latin America’s Lithium Triangle (Argentina, Bolivia, and Chile) has deepened, with significant investments and agreements for lithium extraction. Furthermore, India has expanded its engagement with Central Asia, forming joint ventures like IREUK Titanium Limited with Kazakhstan to produce titanium slag, thereby enhancing its mineral security in the region. - Strengthening Cooperative Engagements:
India has actively engaged with minilateral and multilateral initiatives to bolster its critical mineral supply chain. These include partnerships through the Quad (Australia, India, Japan, and the U.S.), the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity (IPEF), and the Mineral Security Partnership (MSP). Additionally, India’s collaboration with G-7 nations and its ongoing efforts to align with global standards have facilitated knowledge sharing, capacity-building, and best practices in the critical minerals sector. For instance, India’s Ministry of Mines signed an MoU with the International Energy Agency (IEA) to streamline policies and investment strategies for critical minerals.
Challenges and Strategic Recommendations
While India’s mineral diplomacy has achieved significant milestones, several gaps need to be addressed to bolster its effectiveness:
- Private Sector Involvement:
India’s private sector has been relatively underrepresented in mineral diplomacy, limiting its ability to influence the critical mineral supply chain. Establishing a clear supply chain strategy and creating avenues for private sector participation is essential to ensure a more holistic approach. - Diplomatic Capacity and Sustainable Partnerships:
India requires a dedicated mineral diplomacy division within the Ministry of External Affairs, akin to other emerging strategic technologies divisions such as New and Emerging Strategic Technologies (NEST). Furthermore, strengthening mineral diplomacy at diplomatic missions will enhance its reach and impact. - Collaboration with Key Partners:
To overcome its strategic vulnerabilities, India must engage deeply with key global partners, especially the EU, South Korea, and other Quad members. These collaborations are critical in leveraging domestic technological expertise, diplomatic networks, and fostering sustainable partnerships in the critical minerals domain.
Conclusion
India’s efforts in mineral diplomacy are making headway in reducing strategic vulnerabilities by securing reliable supply chains. However, addressing gaps in private sector involvement, diplomatic capacity, and sustainable partnerships is essential for advancing India’s long-term vision of mineral security. By resolving these challenges, India will be better positioned to complement its domestic initiatives with a robust and integrated approach to mineral diplomacy.
