Selection Process of the Indian President
The process of selecting a new President of India is a meticulous and democratic affair, designed to ensure representation from various political bodies across the nation. The President is elected by an electoral college, which is comprised of the elected members of both houses of Parliament—the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha—as well as the elected members of the legislative assemblies of the individual states and Union Territories, specifically Delhi and Puducherry. This broad representation underscores the importance of a consensus-driven approach in the selection of the head of state.
In order for a candidate to stand for election, they must receive the backing of at least 50 electors who serve as proposers and another group of 50 electors as seconders. This requirement adds a layer of scrutiny and ensures that only those candidates with a significant level of support can contend for the presidency. The process aims to filter out candidates who may not have a substantial backing, thus promoting a higher caliber of leadership.
The actual election is conducted according to the system of proportional representation, which employs the Single Transferable Vote (STV) method. This system allows for a more nuanced representation of the electorate’s preferences, as it enables voters to rank candidates in order of preference rather than simply voting for their first choice. The voting process itself is undertaken via secret ballot, designed to preserve the integrity and confidentiality of each elector's choice.
Moreover, the framework of the presidential election is governed by Article 55 of the Indian Constitution, which stipulates the detailed procedures and guidelines for the election process. This constitutional provision is essential in maintaining the democratic ethos of the office, ensuring that the selection is not only fair but also reflective of the collective will of the legislative representatives from across the country.
Candidates
As the 2012 Indian presidential election approached, speculation surrounding potential candidates became a focal point for both the media and political circles. Among the leading names frequently discussed was former President A. P. J. Abdul Kalam, who enjoyed widespread popularity and support, including backing from the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). His tenure as President from 2002 to 2007 left a significant imprint on the nation, and many felt he was a unifying figure who could serve again in the esteemed role. However, on June 15, the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) officially declared Pranab Mukherjee as its candidate for the presidency.
The political landscape was characterized by varying opinions and emerging divides among parties regarding their support for presidential candidates. Notably, signs of a rift were evident within the Janata Dal (United) (JD(U)), as Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar expressed a willingness to abide by collective decisions from the party's constituents regarding their presidential preference. Contrasting this when discussing Mukherjee, party member Shivanand Tiwari praised him, stating that a senior leader like Mukherjee, who was nearing retirement from active politics, deserved to be honored with a graceful send-off as President. Tiwari's support underscored a sentiment of consensus building around Mukherjee's candidacy, which was also echoed by Shiv Sena spokesman Sanjay Raut, who confirmed that their party would back Mukherjee as well.
The situation took a definitive turn when, on June 18, A. P. J. Abdul Kalam declared that he would not pursue a re-election bid for the presidential office. This announcement came after key leaders, including Nitish Kumar from JD(U) and Mulayam Singh Yadav from the Samajwadi Party (SP), expressed their preference for Mukherjee over Kalam. Their declarations of support for Mukherjee significantly influenced the direction of the election. With Kalam's withdrawal, the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) shifted its focus, directing its support towards P. A. Sangma as an alternative candidate. This political maneuvering highlighted the complex dynamics at play in the 2012 presidential race, as alliances formed and shifted in response to prevailing sentiments and strategic interests. The evolving scenario underscored the significance of consensus in Indian presidential elections, where multiple political factions work to align their preferences for a candidate who not only embodies leadership qualities but also has the potential to bridge existing divides within the political landscape.
Unofficial List of Candidates for the 2012 Indian Presidential Election
The 2012 Indian presidential election saw a competitive field with an unofficial list of 45 candidates submitting their nomination applications. The scrutiny process for these candidates took place on July 2, marking an important step in the electoral timeline. Among the prominent nominees, Pranab Mukherjee emerged as a leading candidate, having filed his nomination on June 28. His candidacy garnered widespread support from influential figures within the Indian National Congress (INC), including then Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, party president Sonia Gandhi, and General Secretary Rahul Gandhi. Mukherjee's appeal extended beyond his party, receiving backing from several regional leaders such as Mulayam Singh Yadav of the Samajwadi Party, Lalu Prasad Yadav of the Rashtriya Janata Dal, Ajit Singh of the Rashtriya Lok Dal, Ram Vilas Paswan of the Lok Janshakti Party, Farooq Abdullah of the National Conference, E. Ahmed from the Indian Union Muslim League, and T. R. Baalu of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam.
Furthermore, reports from the Hindustan Times suggested that Mukherjee's support base also included alliances from the National Democratic Alliance, particularly the Janata Dal (United) and Shiv Sena, alongside endorsements from leftist factions like the Communist Party of India (Marxist). After submitting his nomination papers, Mukherjee expressed his hopes for divine blessings and the cooperation of all stakeholders at this crucial juncture.
On the opposing front, P. A. Sangma announced his candidacy backed by a coalition of regional leaders, including Naveen Patnaik, the Chief Minister of Odisha, Parkash Singh Badal of Punjab, and Manohar Parrikar of Goa. His support also included BJP party president Nitin Gadkari and prominent party figures such as L. K. Advani, Sushma Swaraj, and Arun Jaitley. Notably, Arvind Netam, who heads the Tribal Forum of India and is associated with the INC, also voiced his support for Sangma. Excited about his nomination, Sangma declared that the day signified a triumph of tribal unity, emphasizing the significance of having a tribal candidate contesting for the presidency.
The diverse spectrum of candidates and their affiliations in the 2012 Indian presidential election illustrated the complex political landscape of India, where regional parties and alliances played a critical role in shaping the electoral process. The involvement of key political figures signaled the high stakes of the election, as each candidate sought to capitalize on their respective support networks while appealing to the broader electorate.
Electoral Votes and Results
The 2012 Indian presidential election culminated in the successful election of Pranab Mukherjee, who was officially declared elected by Returning Officer V. K. Agnihotri. Mukherjee garnered significant support, amassing 373,116 electoral votes from Members of Parliament (MPs) and an additional 340,647 votes from Members of Legislative Assemblies (MLAs), resulting in an impressive total of 713,763 votes. His main opponent, P. A. Sangma, received 145,848 MP votes and 170,139 MLA votes, totaling 315,987 votes. Mukherjee’s victory was bolstered by strategic cross-voting, highlighting the complexities of political alliances and voter behavior in the electoral process. Following his victory, Mukherjee took the oath of office on July 25, at 11:00 AM, held in the Central Hall of the Parliament Building, a ceremonial event steeped in tradition.
Voting Dynamics
The election's voting patterns reflected diverse political strategies among regional parties and their legislators. In Andhra Pradesh, key political players such as the Telugu Desam Party and the Telangana Rashtra Samithi chose to abstain from voting, indicating a significant political stance on the election outcomes. Conversely, parties like the Communist Party of India and the Revolutionary Socialist Party in Kerala and West Bengal participated in the voting process. These decisions not only influenced the election results but also revealed the underlying political dynamics within the states.
Various states reported instances of invalid votes and abstentions, which can signify various factors, including electoral apathy or dissatisfaction with the candidates. In Karnataka, there was one MLA abstention from voting. Assam's ballot faced two invalid votes and one abstention, while Bihar had three invalid votes alongside one abstention. Haryana reported eight invalid votes, and similar occurrences were noted in states like Chhattisgarh, Himachal Pradesh, Mizoram, and others, where one vote was invalid. In Jammu and Kashmir, Maharashtra, Meghalaya, Nagaland, Punjab, and Sikkim, two votes were invalid. Notably, West Bengal also had a total of four invalid votes, demonstrating the challenges that can emerge in conducting a smooth electoral process.
Overall, the 2012 presidential election in India was not only a pivotal event in determining the country's leadership but also highlighted the intricate interplay of strategies, alliances, and regional political dynamics that are integral to the democratic process in the nation.
Reactions to the 2012 Indian presidential election were diverse, reflecting the polarized political landscape of the country. Pranab Mukherjee, who was elected as President of India, expressed heartfelt gratitude to the citizens for their support, calling it a privilege to serve in such a high office. In his remarks, he emphasized his commitment to protect and uphold the Constitution of India, assuring the public that he would strive to be a trustworthy president. Mukherjee received congratulations from prominent figures including Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Congress Party leader Sonia Gandhi, signaling a united front within his political backing.
In contrast to the celebratory responses from Mukherjee's supporters, Purno Agitok Sangma, his opponent, voiced serious concerns regarding the integrity of the election process. Sangma characterized the election as excessively partisan, asserting that the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) did not genuinely seek consensus when nominating Mukherjee. His comments illuminated a broader discontent, suggesting that powerful political dynamics, including economic incentives and alleged coercive tactics, played a significant role in swaying the election outcome. Sangma lamented the loss of an opportunity to elect a tribal candidate, highlighting ongoing concerns about representation in India's highest political offices.
Responses from various political quarters further intensified the discourse surrounding the election results. Manish Tewari from the Indian National Congress dismissed Sangma's allegations, suggesting that complaints of sour grapes following an electoral defeat were unproductive. Meanwhile, cross-voting during the election raised eyebrows, particularly within the Karnataka BJP. General Secretary Dharmendra Pradhan indicated that the party leadership was taking the matter seriously, prompting an internal investigation into the voting patterns among their MLAs, which hinted at underlying tensions within the party.
The election also drew criticism from civil society, with anti-corruption activist group Team Anna calling Mukherjee a "corrupt president." This sentiment was echoed by Biocon CEO Kiran Mazumdar-Shaw, who argued that the presidential office should remain apolitical and criticized the trend of having candidates with strong political affiliations ascend to such a crucial role. Mazumdar-Shaw's remarks underscored the perceived decline of the presidential office's sanctity, with concerns that the politicization of the presidency might undermine its ability to serve as a stabilizing force within India's democracy.
The political alliances that emerged around the election were also noteworthy, with the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) securing approximately 33.2% of the electoral vote, while the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) followed with about 28%. The results from various states revealed key insights into regional political dynamics and voting behavior, illustrating the complex interplay of different political factions and their influence on national elections. As the reaction from the electoral landscape continues to evolve, the implications of this presidential election may shape India's political narrative for years to come.