Tradition be damned: President Pranab should vote this election

If President Pranab Mukherjee had decided to make a trip to Kolkata on 12 May to vote in South Kolkata, where he is a registered voter, it would have been wonderful. Never mind the expense of a special plane, as all presidents fly by special planes, it would have been a boost to the Election Commission’s campaign to ensure higher voting turnouts to strengthen the democratic process. Of course there would have been some stretching of the local official machinery to provide him security and all that, including perhaps a lunch, but it would have been certainly worth it. Imagine photographs, still and video, of Mukherjee standing in a queue, amidst even security checked voters to ensure his safety, and then casting his vote. [caption id=“attachment_1517183” align=“alignleft” width=“380”]  Not choosing to vote was the wrong decision: PTI image[/caption] Or, since he has had sufficient time to register himself in Delhi where he resides in the presidential palace, he could have done the citizen’s duty and voted in the relevant parliamentary constituency within which his address, the Rashtrapathi Bhavan, is located. He could have queued up with his fellow residents – the employees with quarters within it. Alas, we seem set to miss it. The First Citizen of a democratic republic has chosen to not vote at all by skipping the use of even a postal ballot which his office has secured for him. His reasoning, as provided by his press secretary, is “he would like to preserve the neutrality of his office with regard to those in the political fray” and wanted to “conform to the tradition” of past presidents of not having voted. This idea of not voting to be neutral is a claim to false neutrality. If it were to ensure that he was not accused of taking sides in government formation when no party of no pre-poll alliance won a majority, it appear a logic stretched too far. To me, it has already snapped like an over-stretched rubber band. A vote is a statutory right with conditions of the voter having to be an Indian citizen, of sound mind, above 18 years of age, registered in the voters’ list, and not otherwise disqualified as per law. As a citizen, and the First Citizen to boot, he is a voter who should vote. This applies to those who did not vote in the past. The popular APJ Abdul Kalam and often described as the “people’s President” had voted in 2004 but it did not make him a partisan in politics nor was he seen as one though he was not a politician who became a President. That Pratibha Patil, a controversial President, and who remained so even after demitting office, voted in 2009 is another thing. The argument about adhering to a tradition makes little sense because those who occupy the high office and often pontificate on the virtues of democracy, should be able to remain citizens and when in office, apply their mind and decide on merits. They are expected to do that. One does not vitiate the other responsibility. If one were to take this argument of neutrality further, all Governors should abstain from voting. And judges too. Because it would be technically possible for a case of electoral malpractice involving a candidate from his/her registered constituency to come up before him/her. Voting does not, and should not render a judge partisan to the extent that he/she cannot take up the case. If he/she believed that voting had led to a conflict of interest, then he/she has the option of recusal. We have not heard of such instances. The President, however, cannot recuse himself from anything that comes up before him which he is duty bound to attend. Haven’t Speakers of Lok Sabha or state legislatures, who once elected to the office, voted when in office in elections to bodies other than the ones they presided on? The Lok Sabha speaker may go to the Assembly constituency where he/she is registered and exercise his/her franchise in a state election. A presiding officer, on the other hand, upon being elected, is considered ‘party-less’ and stays away from party activities, at least the visible ones. By the Rashtrapati Bhavan logic of now and the past, which is described a ‘tradition’, all those mandated to carry out their public duties dispassionately have to desist from voting. This include bureaucrats who would be expected to be ‘neutral’ because despite their preferences as voters, still preside over the election process from the booth to the CEC’s offices. This should be the case with journalists as well. In sum, such self-disfranchisement, as shown by the Presidents bar Kalam and Patil, appears to underscore a lack of confidence in themselves as individuals who in public mind can be neutral. They needn’t demonstrate it in this negative fashion but vote as a common man and conduct themselves in a manner that add lustre to the office by doing their other duties dispassionately. It would have helped if Pranab Mukherjee did not hide behind this neutrality business and set up a new tradition where he is both a citizen as well as a First Citizen. Being both is not contradictory. He needs to be an example. Being in Kolkata and voting should have been on his calendar. At worst, the postal ballot should have been put to use.