Before you rush to urge me to run spellcheck on my blog titles at the least, let me assure you that the spelling is exactly what I intended it to be. If presidential politics refers to the politics related to the President, then presidential pollitics relates to the politics surrounding the polls for the positions of President (& Vice-President). Aah, you say - then, why this delay? Though the polls are done with, and the positions filled, there was a jarring note - none of the political parties covered themselves with glory and I find it strange; strange because, the choices for the posts were pretty much alright in terms of profile and expertise when compared with earlier incumbents. The genesis for this blog post, by the way, lies in my idea to creatively recombine two posts by a young friend of mine - if president is a rubber stamp and if third front is doomed to fail. Coming back, better late than never - and so, this post! Had I blogged along with everyone else, it would have been a mere piece of journalism; now that I do it later, it endows the piece with some distance and perspective, making it a historic piece.
Ok, coming to the actors - the most interesting was the case of the third front, named UNPA (United National Progressive Alliance) , which was an unfortunate, though probably unintended concoction of the names of the other two fronts UPA (United Progressive Alliance) and NDA (National Democratic Alliance). Critics sneered and said that the formation of UNPA is another instance of UNPAlatable opportunism and an UNPArdonable sin (puns intended). They believed that nothing positive could come out of such negativity - wrong! The critics forgot that (-)*(-) = (+) and UNPA scored by bringing the name of Abdul Kalam, the most popular choice as reflected in several opinion polls, onto the centerstage. Kalam declined contesting after some consideration; UNPA squandered the advantage and ended up scoring an own goal with some of them abstaining from the polls and some of them voting. One thing that caught my interest was that Karunanidhi remained silent on the prospect of Kalam contesting again - DMK was a party that was portrayed as always rooting for its sons-of-the-soil and what better choice to root for than a Bharat Ratna President? May be the blame lies with coalition politics. However, Bal Thackeray went by son-of-the-soil (or daughter-of-the-soil to be more precise) dictum to support Pratibha Patil, coalition politics be cold-storaged. And what about UPA? It seemed to lose some credibility from the varying utterances of its leaders about the disinterest that Kalam apparently expressed over a second term in office; more importantly, the process in which it arrived at the presidential candidate was also questioned - memorably by an India Today editorial which observed that the question now is not just "Pratibha who" but also "Pratibha why." The NDA seemed to be playing its cards well and there was some speculation in the media of NDA triggering some cross-voting - there was cross-voting, but against NDA. Not being in power at the centre probably means that it is that much more tougher to control dissidents. So, only Left seemed to have maintained its stand properly - they were the only ones to have opposed Kalam when he stood for the elections the first time and even now they were opposed to him - on consistent and principled grounds that only a political person must become a president. Yet, when it came to the Vice-President post, the Left canvassed for a non-political person - an inconsistency that I find baffling. From my limited knowledge, I can say that a President can still get by despite not being a political person, by taking recourse to a battery of constitutional experts at his disposal. The Vice-President, by contrast, is the ex-officio Chairman of the Rajya Sabha and as such, he has to draw from his own experience to conduct the proceedings of the house smoothly - this calls for more political experience than the position of a President, IMHO. A lack of explanation or rationale from the Left makes it even tougher to understand this perplexing choice. Thus, none of the major political parties could cover themselves with glory in the recently concluded presidential pollitics - all the more surprising given the capabilities of the contestants, including the eventual winners. If only things were managed properly, we would have savoured and rejoiced at having two competent people in the highest offices, rather than quibbling unnecessarily.
Aside 1: A young friend is a friend who is young; then shouldn't an old friend be a friend who is old rather than the friendship itself being old? ;)
Ok, coming to the actors - the most interesting was the case of the third front, named UNPA (United National Progressive Alliance) , which was an unfortunate, though probably unintended concoction of the names of the other two fronts UPA (United Progressive Alliance) and NDA (National Democratic Alliance). Critics sneered and said that the formation of UNPA is another instance of UNPAlatable opportunism and an UNPArdonable sin (puns intended). They believed that nothing positive could come out of such negativity - wrong! The critics forgot that (-)*(-) = (+) and UNPA scored by bringing the name of Abdul Kalam, the most popular choice as reflected in several opinion polls, onto the centerstage. Kalam declined contesting after some consideration; UNPA squandered the advantage and ended up scoring an own goal with some of them abstaining from the polls and some of them voting. One thing that caught my interest was that Karunanidhi remained silent on the prospect of Kalam contesting again - DMK was a party that was portrayed as always rooting for its sons-of-the-soil and what better choice to root for than a Bharat Ratna President? May be the blame lies with coalition politics. However, Bal Thackeray went by son-of-the-soil (or daughter-of-the-soil to be more precise) dictum to support Pratibha Patil, coalition politics be cold-storaged. And what about UPA? It seemed to lose some credibility from the varying utterances of its leaders about the disinterest that Kalam apparently expressed over a second term in office; more importantly, the process in which it arrived at the presidential candidate was also questioned - memorably by an India Today editorial which observed that the question now is not just "Pratibha who" but also "Pratibha why." The NDA seemed to be playing its cards well and there was some speculation in the media of NDA triggering some cross-voting - there was cross-voting, but against NDA. Not being in power at the centre probably means that it is that much more tougher to control dissidents. So, only Left seemed to have maintained its stand properly - they were the only ones to have opposed Kalam when he stood for the elections the first time and even now they were opposed to him - on consistent and principled grounds that only a political person must become a president. Yet, when it came to the Vice-President post, the Left canvassed for a non-political person - an inconsistency that I find baffling. From my limited knowledge, I can say that a President can still get by despite not being a political person, by taking recourse to a battery of constitutional experts at his disposal. The Vice-President, by contrast, is the ex-officio Chairman of the Rajya Sabha and as such, he has to draw from his own experience to conduct the proceedings of the house smoothly - this calls for more political experience than the position of a President, IMHO. A lack of explanation or rationale from the Left makes it even tougher to understand this perplexing choice. Thus, none of the major political parties could cover themselves with glory in the recently concluded presidential pollitics - all the more surprising given the capabilities of the contestants, including the eventual winners. If only things were managed properly, we would have savoured and rejoiced at having two competent people in the highest offices, rather than quibbling unnecessarily.
Aside 1: A young friend is a friend who is young; then shouldn't an old friend be a friend who is old rather than the friendship itself being old? ;)
Aside 2: Overheard - Why did Kalam say "fantastic! fantastic!!" to the names of N. R. Narayana Murthy and Pratibha Patil as potential presidential candidates when he himself later planned to contest? Fantastic, when jumbled suitably, becomes "can't-fit-as"!
© Author. All rights reserved.
© Author. All rights reserved.
2 comments:
This is an anecdote that I recently read in Business Standard.
During one of the recent Rajya Sabha sessions, the new VP was chairing the house and there was a ruckus in the house on some issue. The VP was on his toes asking members to take their seats. Repeated requests by the VP went in vain. Seeing this Sitaram Yechury sent a note to the VP advicing him to take his seat (albeit to safeguard the dignity of the post)!!!
This supports your argument why VP needs to have political experience more than the President. But maybe the Left thinks that it can tutor a VP and hence sees no problem in supporting a non-political person!!!
These things apart, I think, the more fundamental question is the need for a VP post at all!! The only substantive role is to chair the RS. But the RS can elect a chair from its members just like the LS. In terms of crisis like non-availability of President or demise of the President in office, the Chief Justice of India can be the acting President temporarily until the new President is elected.
A very interesting anecdote, Mani! Exactly what I was refering to. On the other hand, regarding the second point you have made, I believe that the VP post is important due to the fact that we need an unambiguous second-in-command. Since the VP plays legislative as well as executive roles, that void cannot be easily filled. Also, if the CJI becomes acting president, it negates separation of legislature, executive and judiciary. May be the separation of powers is the reason they thought of having a VP post. Anyway, we should probably happy that the VP in India has more powers than VP in US despite the former hailing from a parliamentary system of governance unlike the latter's presidential form of governance.
Post a Comment