Date : 08/08/2023

Relevance – GS Paper 2 – Polity - Election Process

Keywords – Election Commission, House of Commons, Ineffective Representation

Context –

A panel within the Parliament has proposed reducing the minimum age of eligibility for participating in Assembly elections from 25 years to 18 years.

Advantages of Reducing the Minimum Age for Contesting in Elections:

1. Facilitating Increased Youth Participation: Lowering the minimum age enables and facilitates the active engagement of young individuals in the political process, introducing fresh and innovative perspectives to policy discussions. For instance, in countries like Canada, where the candidacy age is 18, young leaders like Pierre-Luc Dusseault were elected to the House of Commons at a youthful age.
2. Boosted Political Involvement and Awareness: The lower age requirement fosters and encourages greater political awareness and participation among the youth, leading to a more informed, engaged, and empowered citizenry. The success of youth-led movements, such as "March for Our Lives" in the United States, vividly highlights the activism and deep involvement of young people in political issues.
3. Fostering Diversity in Leadership and Representation: Allowing younger candidates paves the way for diverse representation from various age groups, backgrounds, and experiences, injecting new energy, dynamism, and inclusivity into the parliamentary system.
4. Addressing Contemporary Challenges with Fresh Perspectives: Recognizing that young candidates may possess valuable insights into modern issues like technology, climate change, and social justice, as evidenced by surveys showing significant political awareness and knowledge among global youth.

Disadvantages of Lowering the Minimum Age for Contesting in Elections:

1. Insufficient Experience and Maturity: One of the drawbacks of allowing younger candidates to participate in elections is that they may lack the necessary experience and maturity required for effective decision-making and governance.
2. Limited Grasp of Governance and Policy: Young candidates, due to their relatively limited exposure and life experiences, might have a restricted understanding of the intricacies of governance and public policy.
3. Increased Vulnerability to External Influence: Young candidates with less exposure to political dynamics may be more susceptible to external influence and manipulation, potentially impacting their ability to make independent and objective decisions.
4. Potential for Ineffective Representation: Lowering the age requirement might lead to unprepared candidates entering the political arena, posing the risk of inadequate representation and a lack of effectiveness in addressing complex societal challenges.

What is the Election Commission’s opinion?

The Election Commission held a different perspective on the matter, expressing disagreement with the proposal, as they believe that 18-year-olds might not possess the required experience and maturity essential for handling such significant responsibilities.

Other Proposals Discussed by the Committee –

Other proposals deliberated by the committee included the concept of a unified electoral roll for various types of elections. However, caution was advised, emphasizing the need to uphold federalism principles. Currently, some states adopt the Election Commission's electoral rolls, while others do not. Nevertheless, implementing a common electoral roll, as suggested by the central government and ECI, falls outside the current scope of Article 325. The committee raised concerns about the potential implications of such a unified roll on state powers outlined under Chapters IX and IX A of the constitution.

Another topic of discussion was the linking of Aadhaar and Voter IDs, where the committee expressed reservations about linking Aadhaar of non-citizens with Voter IDs. They recommended the establishment of legal provisions to ensure that non-citizens with Aadhaar are not included on electoral rolls.

Furthermore, the committee sought feedback from political parties regarding the Election Commission's proposal for remote voting to facilitate internal migrants' participation in the electoral process.

Conclusion –

The committee made noteworthy recommendations pertaining to false declarations made during nominations. As part of their proposal, they advocated for an increase in the penalty for filing a false affidavit, suggesting a potential extension from the current six months to a period of up to two years, depending on the severity of the offense. These suggestions align with the provisions specified under Section 125A of the Representation of People Act of 1951, which addresses penalties for providing false information during the electoral process.