Open Forum
New
Delhi, 4 July 2012
Rashtrapati Bhavan Race
TENSE PARTIES SLUG DIRT
By Dr.S.Saraswathi
Former Director, ICSSR, New Delhi)
The Presidential election slated
later this month has raised extraordinary excitement among people;
notwithstanding, it is an indirect election in which voters do not participate.
For reasons best known to our polity, no worthwhile attempt to pick a consensus
candidate was made. On the contrary, one is witnessing a bitter conflict
between Parties, UPA vs NDA and among
alliance partners. Rumours are afloat of demands being made for support and
political bargains struck.
An unusual feature of this
Presidential election is the hectic canvassing by candidates on a scale never
seen in the last 60 years of Independence. The contestants are touring various States,
seeking support of leaders and Parties, big and small, even in jail. Thanks to 24-hour TV, we know every movement of
the contenders and their sponsors.
Indeed, this canvassing seems strange
against the backdrop of the general belief that the President is a titular
head, a “rubber stamp” and has no powers. Textbooks picture the President of India as a
nominal head like the British monarch free from day-to-day Governmental
responsibilities.
Notably, one can understand the ambition
of politicians with long political innings who aspire for the top post which
carries a big salary, high prestige value, honour as the country’s first
citizen and many privileges, untouched by austerity prescriptions. All, without the stress and strain of an active
political life, Parliamentary workload, Ministerial responsibility etc. Thus, a race for such a post is quite
legitimate.
Significantly, the 2012 contest for Rashtrapati
Bhavan has proved beyond doubt that the President is not a mere rubber
stamp. The tension that Parties and the Government
are exhibiting arises from the fact that the person elected President holds the
key of who will sit on India’s
Raj gaddi after the 2014 general
election.
Clearly, the President would have to
play a significant political role as envisaged by the Father of the
Constitution. Ambedkar pointed out, the Head of State has two important prerogatives:
One, appointment of the Prime Minister. Two, dissolution of Parliament. Both are crucial factors today given the era
of coalition politics wherein Parliamentary majorities can be made and unmade sans
ideology, issues and values.
Importantly, it is an unwritten
dictum that the President should not only act impartially, but should appear to
act impartially. He has to command the
respect and trust of all Parties. Certainly,
difficult for any politician steeped in Party politics and holding unflinching
loyalty to a particular leader and Party.
Consequently, the politician has to extricate himself/herself from Party
bonds and assume a neutral posture in letter and spirit.
It cannot be said that all
Presidents in the past have fulfilled their role without giving rise to
criticism. The high Presidential Office
has been dragged into controversies for many acts of commissions and omissions.
The expectation from the new President to take impartial decisions is very high
against the backdrop of a fractured mandate in the 2014 Parliamentary
polls.
Undeniably, ‘hung’ Parliaments have
become the order of the day as no Party or even a pre-poll alliance has got a
clear verdict to govern. Also, several Parties contest without entering into any
alliance and only decide about extending support after the elections. That too,
after striking a hard bargain and wrangling a ‘good deal’ to participate in the
next Government. This time around too, hectic
political activity is sure to follow post polls.
What then is the President’s role in
such a scenario? In the event of a divided verdict, the President can take a
chapter from predecessor R.Venkataraman’s book. Who invited Rajiv Gandhi,
leader of the single largest Party but sans majority to form the Government in
1988. But Rajiv refused the invitation because
he did not enjoy the majority of 272 MPs required to win the vote of confidence
in the Lok Sabha.
Questionably, there is no logic in
inviting the biggest Party to form the Government when it does not enjoy the majority
support. Summoning a Party in order of their numerical strength in the Lok
Sabha violates a sound principle as earmarked by a Committee of Governors over
40 years ago. Namely, the ability to command majority support is more important
than the reality of winning the largest number of seats.
In Britain, mother of our
Parliamentary norms, this is termed as “reasonable prospect of maintaining
itself in office.” This practice is also followed in India by the Party staking its
claim to form the Government by “getting written support of different Parties”
and “promises” of issue based “outside support” without joining the Government.
Significantly, the era of coalition
Governments made its debut in the 1970s, and barring the early and mid-80’s
have since come to stay. A further development in recent years is the
established supremacy of some regional Parties in their respective States which
do not depend on any national Party to win elections. But, instead, can dictate
terms for extending their support to it.
Undoubtedly, quid pro quo
politics is natural, never mind Parties refuse to admit this.
This apart, entrenched regional
Parties confident of their base, and keen to keep their options open post poll
results, shun pre-poll alliances. Needless to say, this pot pourrie of electoral politics will make the job of the
President somewhat tricky in deciding which combination of Parties would have
reasonably sound prospects of providing a stable Government. The President can
tackle this by applying the numerical test yardstick irrespective of the
coalition’s trustworthiness or compatibility to prove his neutrality.
Further, in the event of dissolution
of Parliament, the President can exercise his discretion and is not bound by the
advice of his Council of Ministers. Recall, the dissolution of the Lok Sabha in
1979 on the advice of the then Prime Minister Charan Singh who refused to face
a confidence vote in the Lok Sabha, is still remembered as an instance of
violation of the Constitution.
All in all, it is imperative the
President explore every possibility of anointing a reasonably stable Government. Particularly, in a multi-Party milieu, the inherent
weaknesses of individual Parties and the Prime Minister, add impetus to the
powers of the President in exercising his discretion in Government formation as
also dissolution of the Lok Sabha. Any wonder, Parties are more tense than Pranab
Mukherjee and Sangma in this Presidential contest. ---- INFA
(Copyright,
India News and Feature Alliance)
|