The Hindu Business Line : Safeguarding sanctity of nation's first office

Not since the contentious political climate leading to the election of V. V. Giri as the President by `conscience vote' in 1969 has there been so much interest generated in all the goings-on connected with installing the resident of Rashtrapathi Bhavan.

This is to be welcomed as a massive political education of the common people on the merits and demerits of the process of decision-making.

The President, though elected indirectly by a restricted electoral college comprising MPs and MLAs, and required under the Constitution to act on the advice of the Council of Ministers with the Prime Minister at the head, is an integral part of Parliament on an equal footing with the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha. This casts upon him the role of an independent tribune and active conscience of the people, whose well-being he is required by his oath to promote. This means that he should consider himself to be in their service without any sense of obligation to the political establishment.

He is also the Head of State, and the esteem in which the country and its people are held will, to a great extent, be influenced by the dignity and savvy with which he conducts himself. As such, the people are entitled to have a close and critical look at the background of the candidates in the race.

It is not as if that he is an entirely ornamental figurehead. At crucial moments, his judgment and sagacity can be a precious asset and his decisions, at such moments, can have political consequences for good or evil.

An instance is the power vested in him in the Constitution to appoint the Prime Minister: In the era of kaleidoscopic political manoeuvrings, and hung Parliaments, he will have to handle situations of great complexity and uncertainty and convincingly demonstrate his ability to decide on the best choice that will lead to a stable government.

Grave danger

Likewise, although he is to act on the advice of the Council of Ministers, questions of political import could arise when a Cabinet which has manifestly lost the legislature's confidence advises dissolution, or when the decisions of Ministers blatantly subvert laws relating to conduct of elections or prevention of corruption.

There are greater chances of the Prime Minister and his colleagues keeping away from such escapades, if the President is seen to be a person of high moral stature, universally respected for his intellectual acuity, professional attainments and impressive record of service to the country.

It is clear that the greatest need of the hour is to safeguard the sanctity of the nation's first office. In the face of the degeneracy of institutions, the entry of a conspicuous proportion of persons with criminal antecedents into legislatures and Cabinets, and the deepening crisis of character in public life, the grave danger of the Rashtrapati Bhavan going the way of Raj Bhavans has to be averted at all costs.

It is at such fateful times as this when the nation's political and social milieu is showing alarming signs of decadence, that people expect political parties to put the nation's interests above their parties' interests.

In this light, a politician, particularly one who is widely regarded as pliant, artless and naive, can become a serious liability, and may even cause damage to the institution itself.

Indeed, the process of selection of the candidates itself needs to be freed from the kind of machinations that are becoming increasingly evident.

The time has come to save both selection and voting from becoming a prey to compulsions of party politics so that the nation's highest office goes to the individual of unimpeachable credentials.

B. S. RAGHAVAN