It is a good and informative article. But it also expreses helplessness on the part of Indians. I also observed so much of unrest in the mind of all who have participated in the discussion. Good to see so much conern for the country. But friends can you just imagine any value additive product from the president's office other than the talk of prestige of the country , highest office,first citizen like stuffs. I do not want to demean that post as I also love my country , but the fact is that the post is ornamental. Rather we should be thankful to that Great Gyani who could dare to add some value to the famous POSTAL BILL. Hence do not disturb your peace of mind over a post which does not add value to counry's growth. It is high time to realize that all such processes should be abolished which do not add value. In that way everybody must be feelingthat the entire political system should be ovehauled. Why a president can not be elected directly by the people of India? If the cost saved through the present electoral college is costing more to the country in long run then I disapprove this system as a citizen of INDIA. And I think I am sharing the feeling of many. Thanks to all and best wishes for INDIA
RE:Cool Down Friends
by Kaushik Chatterjee on Jun 22, 2007 04:42 PM Permalink
Here are the reasons why the President of India cannot be elected direct by the people of India : (1) Firstly, in a country following the Cabinet system of Government, the office of titular Chief Executive is a technical one, to the extent that his duties are largely prescribed by other authorities (usually by the Legislature), which requires specific competence for the performance of its duties from the incumbent. Very few voters can be competent to judge wisely of the technical abilities of the candidates for any particular office of this type, having specific, limited and defined functions. (2) Secondly, if the direct election of the President were adopted, the Presidential candidate who has to carry on an election campaign from one corner of the country to another will certainly be put up by some party or the other, which may cause political excitement and generate party feelings. Thus the man elected to the Presidential office through this means will never be able to forget his party affiliations. So the ideal of getting a non-party man outside the turmoil of party passions and reasonably respected by all factions to assume the role of the head of the State will be defeated. Further, as India is almost a sub-continent with crores of enfranchised citizens, it would be impossible to provide an electoral machinery for the purpose of smooth and successful Presidential election. (3) Lastly, a directly elected Chief Executive may not be content with his position of a mere
RE:Cool Down Friends
by Ashoka on Jun 22, 2007 04:54 PM Permalink
Dear Chatterjee Thanks for the arguments. But these are for the sake of argument only. 1.The citizen of country who understands the technicalities of the MP/MLA, can not undersatnd the technical requirement in the canidate for president post- Not convincing. A Pranab Mukherjee , who has not been elected , can understand the specific requirement - Not agreed. 2.All these mishappening are taking place now also. Party line politics is alredy there in the game . Saying impossible is easy to adopt than adopting the change.
RE:Cool Down Friends
by Praiti Gupt on Jun 22, 2007 05:36 PM Permalink
Dear Ashoka
In fact, one of the most potent reasons why the President of India cannot be elected direct by the people of India is this : A directly elected Chief Executive may not be content with his position of a mere constitutional head and can claim to derive his authority directly from the people. So, if he wanted to assume real power, it would lead to a constitutional deadlock and an inevitable clash with the Cabinet or real executive. This would definitely produce a confusion of responsibility. Such an eventuality had happened when under the French Constitution of 1848 the President of the French Republic, Louis Napoleon, was elected by the direct vote of the people, and by exploiting this system, he had overthrown the Republic to establish the empire with himself as emperor. To prevent the recurrence of such a contingency, the French people in their later constitutions discredited and abandoned the system of electing the head of State by the direct vote of the people.
