Consensus, not contest

With less than two months left for the presidential elections, speculation is rife in political circles about potential candidates. Quite a few names have surfaced in this context. The ruling National Democratic Alliance (NDA) has stolen a march over the Opposition by authorising Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee to announce a name in consultation with the Opposition. As part of this exercise, the prime minister has already held one round of discussions with Leader of the Opposition Sonia Gandhi. Although neither side has revealed what transpired at the Sunday meeting, the grapevine suggests that the Congress leader opted for K.R. Narayanan being given a second term. It was a proposal that Vajpayee reportedly rejected on the grounds that the consensus in the NDA was against it. But these are early days yet, and it is difficult to conclude that the pendulum has clearly swung in favour of this candidate or that. Government spokesmen refer to the fact that the prime minister will have consultations with other opposition parties also before coming up with a name. The method the ruling coalition has chosen to zero in on a consensus candidate for the highest post in the country has a lot to commend itself.

Consensus about the President is a new phenomenon, which can be traced to the election of Narayanan nearly five years ago. Until then, it was always the ruling party’s nominee who got elected on its sheer voting strength. Also, in those days, it did not really matter who presided over Raisina Hill as he merely had to sign on the dotted line. The situation has undergone a drastic change since then, because chances of a single party coming to power at the Centre are now considered negligible. The country has been reconciling itself to the fact that it will have to live with coalition governments. However, such arrangements do pose peculiar challenges to the presidency. In the recent past, there were occasions when the President had no precedents or written rules to go by in taking momentous decisions. Of course, he could seek expert opinion on the role expected of him as the ultimate defender and protector of the Constitution. But, in the end, he himself had to decide whether to swear in a particular person as prime minister or reject a particular proposal like dismissing a state government forwarded to him by the Cabinet.

Though Narayanan had got elected to the Lok Sabha on the Congress ticket three times, nobody saw him as a Congressman because he was elected with the support of every major political party, except the Shiv Sena. Hence his decisions and suggestions had greater acceptability. This shows how important consensus is in the election of the President. Nonetheless, consensus for the sake of consensus is not what the nation expects from its political leadership. Of paramount importance is the stature and competence of the person finally chosen. Needless to say, only one who has a fierce commitment to the ideals of the Constitution and who can indeed rise above partisan considerations deserves such a consensus. Political parties should, therefore, keep this overriding consideration in mind when they evolve a consensus on who the next president of India should be.