The US presidential system forces leaders to be born

And, as a bonus, will end up getting more people to vote.

Consider this: when was the last time in India, in the months before an election, you had a clear idea of who would be the chief minister of a state or who would be the prime minister of the country if his or her party won the election?

And, if you did know, well before the elections, who the CM or PM candidates were, would it change anything?

Would Karnataka’s electorate have voted the BJP into power if they were aware, before the elections, that Yeddyurappa would be the man controlling the state? Would the Congress have done better in the Uttar Pradesh elections if it had been announced that Rahul Gandhi would be the chief minister if the Congress won the elections?

Would the BJP or the Congress get more votes in the next Lok Sabha elections if their choices for PM are announced before electioneering begins?

Who do you vote for, whether it’s a state election or the Lok Sabha election — for the party or the candidate?

It’s not one or the other — it’s a combination of the two. What the US presidential election system does is to force the parties to arrive at the candidate who will be able to enthuse their existing party supporters to come out and vote and to convert as many of those without alignment to the two leading parties into supporters of their own.

The questions in the voter’s mind: “Do I trust this person to run the country?” “Do I believe that he will deliver on the promises that he makes during the election campaign?” “Will he or she truly represent me?”

For example, a BJP fan might be enthused if Narendra Modi is named as the PM designate — while another BJP fan might not. Similary, an undecided voter could choose the BJP because of the prospect that Modi might be the PM; another might be pushed into choosing another party.

What the US presidential system does, through the primary process is to force the party to, for once concentrate on what the voters want. Once the candidate is announced, the voter’s allegiance is not just to a party — it’s to a combination of the party and the candidate.

In the Indian system, where all parties announce their CM or PM nominee AFTER the election results are announced, recent times have proved that the choice of candidate is one that best manages the conflicts within the party, rather than one that addresses the concerns of the people who voted the party into power.

The advantages of a party embracing the American primary system to choose CM and PM nominees are many. The foremost is that the media focus will be on the candidate and his or her history, plans and beliefs rather than (as is the case today) on who could be the candidate should the party win. As a consequence, the focus of the voter, too, is on the contradictions within the party rather than on the candidate.

An unintended bonus is that the party will look for a candidate who is the cleanest, the most likely to be accepted by the electorate, and, perhaps the most efficient. Such a system will force aspirants within a party to be able to stand up to inner-party scrutiny first, and prove to their peers that they deserve the post that is up for grabs.

More importantly, the candidate, once named, puts his or her career on the line. To buttress credibility, the candidate has to be extremely careful while making promises, limiting them to the promises that can be delivered — very different from the promises made by Indian politicians, which are not worth the paper that they are printed on. The upside is that a candidate who makes and delivers on the promises (or defends why they could not be kept with credibility) becomes a stronger and more credible leader.

Perhaps that’s not the kind of candidate Indian parties want.