Elections — Should parliamentary polls be held every 3 years instead of every 5 years? Statement: Should the parliamentary elections in India be held every three years (instead of five years)? Arguments: I. No. This will enhance wastage of money and.

Question

Solve this multiple-choice question and choose the correct option.

Curioustab · Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:The proposal shortens India’s parliamentary term from five to three years. We must judge which arguments are strong based on institutional stability, cost, and governance outcomes. Given Data / Assumptions: Elections in a large democracy are expensive (money, manpower, security). Continuity enables policy planning, execution, and evaluation. Accountability exists through other democratic mechanisms (debates, media, mid-term by-elections) even within a five-year term. Concept / Approach:We weigh systemic costs and governance time horizons against the desire for more frequent electoral accountability. Step-by-Step Solution: Argument I: Strong. More frequent national elections significantly raise fiscal and administrative burdens and divert governments toward perpetual campaigning.Argument II: Weaker. While earlier replacement is attractive, it ignores the costs and instability created; accountability can be pursued via intra-term mechanisms.Argument III: Strong. Development policy often requires multi-year gestation; shorter terms encourage short-termism and reduce execution time. Verification / Alternative check:Comparative experience suggests that overly frequent national polls increase volatility and policy discontinuity without commensurate gains in performance. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only I and II / Only II and III / All strong: they elevate II unduly. None strong: contradicts the substantial weight of I and III. Common Pitfalls:Believing more frequent elections automatically improve governance; in practice, they can crowd out long-term policy. Final Answer:Only I and III are strong

Answer

Explanation