Restore sanctity of constitutional posts

Recently, the Supreme Court made critical remarks about the manner in which the constitutionally mandated Election Commission members are chosen. Their tenures are also erratic. The SC recalled the TN Seshan years when the CEC asserted his power “without fear or favour.” That was a “one-off.” What happens today is no surprise, as it is the result of a malaise that has infected most governments in India, both state and central, over the past few years. This conflict is neither sudden nor surprising. The Supreme Court itself has had some internal dissent regarding the Collegium system of appointing senior judges.

In the latest development in the murky politics playing out in Kerala, the High Court has had to intervene in an ugly and open war between the state’s governor and the government. The battle may have been won by one side this time, but the war is not over and will not be won by either side. The people of Kerala will be the losers in a state that needs a boost to its broken economy but where the government has no time to focus on that desperate need.

Trust deficit has been a growing phenomenon in governance in India over years-- it has been noticed and reported by a few but largely ignored. In many cases, more often than not there is ample room for suspicion that points to party politics. This is also because all old traditions and systems that were used for a consensus selection of suitable candidates for crucial and sensitive positions have been set aside. They have been replaced to dole out favours to the supporters of ruling parties, discards, or those who obstruct and need to be moved out of the way.

One has only to look back towards the early years of independence, when constitutional positions were all held by eminent persons and the dignity of those offices was universally respected and trusted.

There was a time when the selection of candidates for the highest constitutional posts, those of president, vice president, and governors, proceeded smoothly with the dignity associated with those posts.

There was also a tradition by which the south and the north of the country alternately held the posts of President and Vice-President. Starting with Rajendra Prasad and Radhakrishnan, the system survived for years before the quality of the candidates began to suffer due to political differences within and between parties.

Then the north-south balance was discarded, and even the topmost posts became subject to hot and sometimes unseemly contests. According to the Constitution, governors are to the states what the president is to the nation.

Governors used to be appointed in consultation with chief ministers but are no longer so. All those prestigious posts have also often been devalued by choices based on extraneous considerations.

The biggest, and striking , difference between then and now is in the “bench-strength” of apolitical, scholarly, and professional candidates suitable for constitutional positions that we used to have. The evil of political prejudice has tended to overtake national interest. Where once candidates were chosen to lead they are now those willing to be led. Our biggest current concern is the growing infertility in our country, and the current and potential shortage of worthy candidates who are willing to accept fiduciary, mandated positions.

The first step in remedying the situation is to make an open-minded assessment of the specific needs of each constitutional position when there is no vacancy at that time. This means there will be no favoritism, and the assessors must be senior representatives of the stakeholders in each case. This would mean the government, the opposition, and one or more eminent professionals. Where positions for the states are involved, the assessors would include a representative of the states. Thus, when
a vacancy does arise, each candidate would be assessed against an objectively-
made scale that has much wider acceptance.

In the present warlike situation between governments and oppositions, the first and immediate step, however difficult, is to get the Parliament functioning again. If Biden and Xi can talk to each other, surely leaders in power and the opposition in India can do the same. Political hostility costs the nation too much, and the time has come to put the welfare of the nation before personal and inter-party animosity.