The interest of voters in election related activities has been increasing over the years.Justify the statement with 3 suitable arguments.
plzz it's urgent
Answers
Our Constitution entitles every citizen
to elect her/his representative and to
be elected as a representative. The
Constitution makers, however, were
worried that in an open electoral
competition, certain weaker sections
may not stand a good chance to get
elected to the Lok Sabha and the state
Legislative Assemblies. They may not
have the required resources,
education and contacts to contest and
win elections against others. Those
who are influential and resourceful
may prevent them from winning
elections. If that happens, our
Parliament and Assemblies would be
deprived of the voice of a significant
section of our population. That would
make our democracy less
representative and less democratic.
So, the makers of our Constitution
thought of a special system of
reserved constituencies for the
weaker sections. Some constituencies
are reserved for people who belong
to the Scheduled Castes [SC] and
Scheduled Tribes [ST]. In a SC
reserved constituency only someone
who belongs to the Scheduled
Castes can stand for election.
Similarly only those belonging to the
Scheduled Tribes can contest an
election from a constituency
reserved for ST. Currently, in the
Lok Sabha, 84 seats are reserved for
the Scheduled Castes and 47 for the
Scheduled Tribes (as on 1 September
2012). This number is in proportion
to their share in the total population.
Thus the reserved seats for SC and
ST do not take away the legitimate
share of any other social group.
This system of reservation
was extended later to other
weaker sections at the district and
local level. In many states, seats
in rural (panchayat) and urban
(municipalities and corporations)
local bodies are now reserved for
Other Backward Classes (OBC) as
well. However, the proportion of
seats reserved varies from state to
state. Similarly, one-third of the
seats are reserved in rural and
urban local bodies for women
Elections are thus all about political
competition. This competition takes
various forms. The most obvious form
is the competition among political
parties. At the constituency level, it
takes the form of competition among
several candidates. If there is no
competition, elections will become
pointless.
But is it good to have political
competition? Clearly, an electoral
competition has many demerits. It
creates a sense of disunity and
‘factionalism’ in every locality. You
would have heard of people
complaining of ‘party-politics’ in your
locality. Different political parties and
leaders often level allegations against
one another. Parties and candidates
often use dirty tricks to win elections.
Some people say that this pressure
to win electoral fights does not allow
sensible long-term policies to be
formulated. Some good people who
may wish to serve the country do not
enter this arena. They do not like the
idea of being dragged into unhealthy
competition.
Our Constitution makers were
aware of these problems. Yet they
opted for free competition in
elections as the way to select our
future leaders. They did so because
this system works better in the long
run. In an ideal world all political
leaders know what is good for the
people and are motivated only by a
desire to serve them. Political
competition is not necessary in such
an ideal world. But that is not what
happens in real life. Political leaders
all over the world, like all other
professionals, are motivated by a
desire to advance their political
careers. They want to remain in
power or get power and positions for
themselves.They may wish to serve
the people as well, but it is risky to
depend entirely on their sense of
duty. Besides even when they wish
to serve the people, they may not
know what is required to do so, or
their ideas may not match what the
people really want.
How do we deal with this real life
situation? One way is to try and
improve the knowledge and character
of political leaders. The other and
more realistic way is to set up a
system where political leaders are
rewarded for serving the people and
punished for not doing so. Who
decides this reward or punishment?
The simple answer is: the people.
This is what electoral competition
does. Regular electoral competition
provides incentives to political
parties and leaders. They know that
if they raise issues that people want
to be raised, their popularity and
chances of victory will increase in
the next elections. But if they fail to
satisfy the voters with their work
they will not be able to win again.So if a political party is motivated
only by desire to be in power, even
then it will be forced to serve the
people. This is a bit like the way
market works. Even if a shopkeeper
is interested only in his profit, he is
forced to give good service to the
customers. If he does not, the
customer will go to some other shop.
Similarly, political competition may
cause divisions and some ugliness,
but it finally helps to force political
parties and leaders to serve the
people.
