Presidential tightrope

In coming months and years, President will have major role

Recently, Foreign Minister Salman Khurshid confirmed that some in the Union Cabinet had met President Pranab Mukherjee at the time the government was considering anti-corruption ordinances. Mr Khurshid, in an interview to Karan Thapar on the news channel CNN-IBN, said he had “no idea” whether the President had advised against the ordinances, but he did say that “the perception” of the President on the urgency of the issues mattered. Earlier, newspaper reports had also suggested that the President had reservations about a raft of ordinances the government had proposed after Parliament’s session had ended. If it is the case that Mr Mukherjee did indeed successfully stand up for what he saw as constitutional propriety, then he deserves praise. That is precisely the duty and responsibility of India’s president.

The question of constitutional propriety and values will take on considerable salience in the months, and perhaps years, to come. India is heading into an election in which the stakes are seen as high all round. The formation of a stable coalition might well depend upon the President’s actions and choices. But, also, those actions and choices will have to be defensible and defended. Disappointed politicians questioning the President would undermine India’s institutional structure. Some in the political class might well be tempted to make political capital out of any choices the President makes — a temptation that should be anticipated and accounted for. Mr Mukherjee, with his long experience of Indian politics, is well placed to carry out that task.

Mr Mukherjee will have an even more onerous responsibility to shoulder after the new government is formed. Whether Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi or someone else becomes the next prime minister, Mr Mukherjee will be required to uphold the framework of the Indian state and the foundational ideas embedded in its Constitution. The Supreme Court of India stands as a bulwark against many distortions in the system. Others, however, might require the President to act in the manner that he is believed to have done when faced with the possibility of anti-corruption ordinances. The exact nature of the powers of Mr Mukherjee’s office has been the subject of heated debate since the 1950s, but there is no doubt that in the coming months he will be called on to balance a complex set of requirements. On the one hand, he must defend the spirit of India’s liberal Constitution. On the other, he must not overstep his role, one circumscribed more by tradition and practice than actual written law. And, finally, he must only take steps that can be easily seen to be justified, since the President cannot defend his actions as a regular politician can. The most intense and influential days of Pranab Mukherjee’s long career may lie not in the past but in the future.