The Presidential poll has been notified. The race is on – with a late twist in the tale - but the process has sadly been sullied, not so much by the candidates but by party managers, aided by sections of the media, which displays a tendency to reduce everything to a tamasha. The first thing that needs to be said is that the two principal contenders, Pratibha Patil, Governor of Rajasthan, and the Vice-President, Bhairon Singh Shekhawat, have conducted themselves with dignity. Both are eminently suitable and whosoever wins, the country will not be the loser.
However, it defies understanding why the Congress is noisily insistent on a consensus in favour of Ms Patil and why the BJP has been so ungracious about her nomination.
A presidential contest is a normal, healthy, democratic procedure and not something to be denounced or aborted. Why should not candidates be pitted against one another, outline their views and stand the test of public scrutiny before being called upon to assume high office. What is demeaning about it? Rather, it is the wholly undemocratic Congress culture, nurtured over decades, that has sought to avoid democratic contest and “manage” an authoritarian and oftentimes imposed party “consensus” to the detriment of values, processes and outcomes that is to be deplored. What has then been hailed as a “victory” has time and again been a product of pressure and petulance, leaving behind a trail of bitterness, humiliation and hypocrisy that has done the party no good and set wrong standards.
To offload this “Congress culture” on the nation is a gross imposition and morally repugnant. The very idea of a constitutionally-ordained election under due process implies a contest and not a charade. Why run away? And the plea that “we backed your candidate the last time and so you must return the favour” is puerile. A consensus, if it comes, must come naturally. To argue that the nomination of a woman candidate demands consensus is equally fatuous. Gender is a qualification and certainly has high symbolic value. But it is only one qualification and the BJP’s retort that “you did not support our woman candidate on a previous occasion” is an illogical answer to a false proposition.
The BJP has been equally churlish in decrying Ms Patil as not “the first or natural choice” of the UPA but merely a default candidate. Her name only came up publicly after the UPA partners failed to agree on any of the earlier nominees. This is true but does not detract from Ms Patil’s suitability. She is well educated, an experienced legislator and has been a minister at the state and Centre, was a presiding officer in the Rajya Sabha, is now a Governor and has been a long time social worker. That is no mean record; and to be unassuming and have a reputation for integrity is no disqualification. Mr Shekhawat too has a fine reputation as a person with vast political experience. He too is eminently qualified for the job.
The problem lies in the fact that the Congress or UPA bandied about their possible choices prematurely. The media went to town with these, running all manner of polls and commentaries, some of which were not in good taste, trivialising the Presidential poll as a popularity contest.
The suggestion that Ms Patil’s main virtue is “loyalty” to the Congress President and is therefore a “safe” rubber-stamp who can be trusted to bail the Congress or UPA out of any difficult situation in the future, is uncharitable and unfortunate. Why should loyalty to one’s party of origin be a disqualification? Mr Shekhawat has risen above the BJP as Vice-President. Ms Patil must be relied upon to do the same should she be elected President and there is no reason to presume otherwise. High office very often makes the incumbent obedient to a higher loyalty – the Constitution. Certainly some have failed this test in the past. But to damn either of today’s leading Presidential candidates for the real or alleged failure of others would be to deny virtue forever in every sphere. This is cynicism and nihilism gone wild.
The pre-selection process has certainly shown up certain weaknesses that call for debate and review. The notion that only politicians or administrators are suited to be heads of state is fallacious. It is this narrowing of choice that has resulted in so many mediocrities and misfits being appointed Governors over the years. Regrettably the criteria has been to induct hatchet men or fixers to do the Centre’s bidding or to put a failed politician out to pasture. The Governor has a constitutional role and is more than a figurehead. It also ill behoves Governors, chameleon-like, to tailor principles to the prevailing winds as we have witnessed very recently when the Governor of UP read an Address inaugurating the new Assembly accusing the previous government of being “unconstitutional” and of promoting “goonda and mafia raj”. How then did he preside over such criminality? 
Independent professionals, academics and achievers can also fill high office with distinction. President Kalam is an example. Regrettably his name was bruited about unauthorisedly for ulterior motives. He has, however, surprised all by indicating willingness, given “certainty.” His late entry adds suspense but little clarity to what has become a murky comedy of errors.