Why Do We Have A President?

We, Indians, are an emotional lot. We love our family dramas as much as we love the political tussles. Maybe that’s stereotyping world’s 17% population, but is definitely not a far cry from truth. Newspapers, TV anchors and we, the mango people alike, are all fretting over who shall be our next president. Add to that the games that our politicians play, numerous and ever-changing power equations, hidden agenda, and voila, you have a perfect Abbas-Mustan-kinda suspense in store. While everyone is busy doing their math, we thought we should better dwell upon some common misconceptions regarding the president’s election and role.

India is the biggest democracy in the world, yet people’s choice carries no weight in the election of the president.

Well, well, well! Are you committing the mistake of equating Indian president’s election with that of say the US, Russia or France? These countries are examples of presidential system of government, where the real as well as nominal heads happen to be same. So when Bill Clinton’s dalliance with Monica Lewinski was discovered, the people in the US – accustomed to such stories – didn’t create much scene. No country refused to deal with Bill Clinton just because he cheated on his wife. Imagine the situation in our country (now don’t say our men are totally pious and patnivrata). Do you really think our moral brigade will let anyone with such charges continue as the president, when they ask for Chidambaram’s resignation every second day, without any proof? Since India is a developing economy, we depend a lot on our foreign policy to get the best deal for our citizens (123 nuclear deal with the US was not a cakewalk, just in case you thought). Who would act on the nation’s behalf in such times? Does that mean that a country already crippled by corruption and scores of other issues will miss on vital opportunities just because the opposition didn’t let the house run for a day, or just because self-appointed protector’s of public consciousness stage a strike at Jantar Mantar?

Why couldn’t we have a presidential system, too, like the US. After all, they are the most powerful country!

Political scientists are divided in their opinion about the efficacy of these two forms of government; both have their merits and demerits. It benefits a lot to have a parliamentary system, where nominal and real heads of the government are separate. Irrespective of the doing of the prime minister and his ministers, there is at least someone to represent the country without an albatross around his neck. Parliamentary system can be slow, yes, but a presidential system, runs the risk of the president becoming all powerful. Want examples? Remember the backlash against Putin’s control in Russia recently? The US, too, is no better. A US president can only have two maximum terms, and to date, no incumbent president serving his first term has ever lost the bid to get reelected (yes, we can a hazard a guess that Obama will return to power)!

Okay, so what? Still our president is not elected by people!

Good thing is that our nominal heads (presidents) have not been so just because of their descent, like in the UK or other constitutional monarchies. In the UK and other monarchies, the prime minister’s post (who is the real head of the government) depends on direct elections, but nominal head is always from the royal family. Are we not a better democracy then? In that sense we are more democratic than various countries – including the UK, Belgium, Bahrain, Canada, Denmark, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain and Sweden, amongst many others – where a common citizen can never dream of welcoming a foreign state head. In India, on the other hand, people like Dr Rajendra Prasad and APJ Abdul Kalam Azad have risen from masses to the glory of the country’s head.

So now when it is clear that the president in India is unlike the president in the US, what sense does it make to have a directly elected president? Why waste money twice – once to form Lok Sabha and elect prime minister, and then, to have a single country head? Why not leave the president’s election on the Lok Sabha representatives that we elect through our votes? When we can trust someone to be good enough to directly make policies impacting our life, why must we not trust him/her to elect us a suitable president, who is anyway not supposed to formulate policies?

Still, I guess APJ Abdul Kalam is the best. He has given so much to the country. What good did Pratibha Patil do, except for her costly plane travels?

(Such quasi-nationalist images are a common sight on social networking sites these days)

First things first – if you insult our president, you insult our democracy. Pratibha Patil was elected by an electorate of parliamentarians and members of state legislative assemblies, who in turn were elected by people like you and me. Her trips, as we have explained in one of our earlier article, were vital to the furthering of our foreign policy. You can see how the US is doing all that it takes to foster a sronger bond with us. Anyway, she is the president of India – one of the largest economies – and not a famished Somalia. Why do we seek to bring all development through savings made on the president’s extremely important tours? How about avoiding tax thefts?

While, we are deeply appreciative of Mr Kalam’s contribution, we also believe that a president of choice of the Congress would wield a far better check (however little) on the new government, when it looks likely that the UPA might not return to power. Remember Mr Kalam was elected during the tenure of the NDA? While we don’t doubt the neutrality of any of our presidents and speakers of the parliament, and have been rather lucky to have commendable leaders like Somnath Chatterjee, we are in awe of the beauty of our democracy, and believe that the best man (or woman, given Miera Kumar’s name was also doing the rounds) will be our president. So it’s pointless to be emotional about one person. Anyway, there’s one unwritten rule amongst parties. Except for Dr Rajendra Prasad, we haven’t had a president for the second term. With a population over 1.2 billion, we are surely not short of the candidates.

We must have a performance-oriented president. After all, it’s a question of the upliftment of countless poor and India’s development.

As we explained the president is not supposed to formulate any policy. All decisions of the government are made in the name of president. All wars and treaties are declared and entered into with the president’s seal. The president represents the kind face of our polity to the world.

Why do we have a president after all, when (s)he is nothing more than a rubberstamp, and has no powers?

It rarely happens that elderly in our families have all the powers. We make decisions and yet we ask them. They generally advise with their experience, but don’t necessarily put spanner in the works. Does that mean elderly are obsolete and must be thrown out of the family?

Similarly, the role of the president cannot be underestimated. Interestingly, our presidents have something called a pocket veto, which is not really defined in the constitution, but has been used, by one of our presidents when necessary. We all know that a president has to sign money bills (budget) and for other bills, too, he can only ask the parliament to reconsider their decision or can, at best, make some suggestions. If the parliament sends back the bill unchanged, the president HAS to sign it. But what if the president never sends the bill back to the parliament in the first place? Our constitution doesn’t define it. In such a case, the bill keeps on lying with the president. It is a strong additional check, ensuring that nothing draconian takes place (although there are various other checks and balances in place to make sure that such a situation doesn’t arise). This is a unique feature of our democracy! President Zail Singh used it in 1986.

Um, just out of curiosity, are governors, too, important like the president? I thought they were totally obsolete!

Yes, governors, too, cannot be thought to be just there for the heck of it. Our country has a federal structure, but a unique one. In the US, which is a federation too, states are free to have their own constitutions and can exit the union at their will. When powers were distributed between the central government (that headed by Obama at present) and states, at the beginning of the US constitution, any leftover/undefined powers were assumed to belong to the states. But in India, thankfully, no state can disassociate itself from the country at its will (one can only imagine the repercussions, if it was allowed to happen). We have just one constitution (with the exception of Kashmir). It’s important to have governors to have the central government’s overarching role.

Let’s not lose our sleep over who’s going to win! All of our presidents have been unique and special in one way or the other; take heart that the trend will continue.