Under the garb of Presidential election

Under the garb of Presidential election

EDITORIAL NEWS

Share on facebookShare on bloggerShare on linkedinShare on twitterMore Sharing Services11

Under the garb of Presidential election

June 18, 2012 10:38 AM

By Deepak Parvatiyar

It goes without saying that the post of the President is highly political. The provision in our Constitution ensures that it is the political class that elects the President.

However, it also goes without saying that the President is supposed to be above partisan politics and a highly distinguished statesman. This is by convention.

However, it also goes without saying that the President is supposed to be above partisan politics and a highly distinguished statesman. This is by convention.

While delivering the Draft Constitution, late BR Ambedkar, in his speech on November 4, 1948, had stated that President “is the symbol of the nation”.

This is the reason why although the President is elected through an electoral college constituting the elected members of Rajya Sabha, Lok Sabha, and the Legislative Assemblies of the states, our expectation is much higher from the Presidential incumbent.

Over the years we have seen many eminent personalities as our first citizens who lived up to our expectations and adorned the position with dignity. Yet, there are other instances where pure political consideration and favoritism have directly contributed to the elevation of a person to the exalted post.

This dichotomy between established conventions and Constitutional provision now turns out to be an area that requires a close scrutiny because in an era of coalition politics, it now increasingly gives scope to shadow boxing and bickering.

Look at the events of the last week. Weren’t you derisive about the unprecedented political maneuvering and posturing over the choice of the Presidential candidates by political parties? In the garb of suggesting the most suitable person for the post, didn’t the political class indulge into a dangerous show of strength to leverage the fragile coalition politics for hard bargaining and political positioning?

Take the case of the NCP leader Purno Sangma jumping into the fray of the Presidential election to rake up the issue of a tribal President. Predictably support to him came from anti-Congress forces while the Congress and its coalition partner, the NCP, sulked.

Consider the case of Odisha chief minister Naveen Patnaik of Biju Janata Dal, and his Tamil Nadu counterpart and AIADMK supremo J. Jayalalithaa endorsing Sangma’s candidature. Weren’t they quick to grab the opportunity respectively to woo the 24 percent tribal population of Odisha, and to embarrass the Congress-led UPA?

How will you explain the extraordinary case of estranged bedfellows (pun intended) Mulayam Singh and Mamata Banerjee – both key UPA allies? First they came together to announce their preference for former President Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam (the choice of the NDA for the President’s post). Then Mulayam shunted a shocked Mamata to declare his support to Pranab Mukherjee after the Congress formally declared the latter as its
candidate for the post.

Isn’t Mulayam’s a classic case of political opportunism under the garb of the Presidential election? Hasn’t Mulayam, in one single stroke, shown his true worth to the Congress party which was upset with Mamata’s tantrums, and asserted his indispensability to the ruling coalition? (The grouping of Mulayam and Mamata for once had even raised the spectre of a mid-term poll and a section of media had already started speculating whether Mulayam could be the Prime Minister after the mid-term election).

Had the founding fathers of our Constitution ever envisaged such a situation when they deliberated on the issue of the election of the President? Obviously while electing a President through an electoral college, they wanted to emphasize the fact that the real power resided in the ministry and the legislature and not in the President as such.

Yet in the last two decades, the office of the President has acquired greater significance and authority. This is because of the fragile nature of coalition politics that demands the President to play a decisive role to maintain political stability. We have seen in recent past, Presidents taking controversial decisions and taking sides.

In one of his deliberations at the Union Constitution Committee of the Constituent Assembly, Jawaharlal Nehru had expressed sneaking sympathy for the view that the President should be a non-party man but added that this would be impracticable and the best that could he hoped for was the impartial behaviour of the President in office. “Nehru was the Constituent Assembly’s idealist”, Justice HR Khanna wrote in his book, Making of India’s Constitution.

Indeed the reality is different though in an era of coalition governments.

What else can describe the murky politics over Dr. Kalam who strives to uphold the dignity of the post that he held five years ago, by reportedly declining to “contest” for the post once again? (The NDA drags him into the fray and the UPA rejects him).

Its time we ask ourselves.

(The writer is a New Delhi-based senior journalist and filmmaker)