Two trends stem from the drama leading up to Pranab Mukherjee’s nomination for the presidency and subsequent developments: the limits to state leaders’ assertion of power and the very political nature of the contest for presidency.

Mamata Banerjee found to her cost that playing national politics is a very different game from being the giant killer in her state of West Bengal.
There is little doubt that the structure of India’s semi-federal nature is being buffeted by state leaders demanding a greater say in the country’s affairs even as the peculiar nature of the two power centres in New Delhi, with ultimate power residing with Mrs Sonia Gandhi, rather than Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, has weakened the Centre’s authority. This has happened in parallel with strong chief ministers demonstrating their ability to take their states forward.
Ms Banerjee’s apparent coup in getting Mulayam Singh Yadav of the Samajwadi Party to agree to a list of three names that did not figure in the two names that she announced were Mrs Gandhi’s preference — Mr Mukherjee and Hamid Ansari — shook the Congress Party. Even more insulting was the Prime Minister’s name in the list seemingly mocking his standing in the power structure and snubbing Mrs Gandhi in no uncertain terms.
In her enthusiasm to take her remarkable victory over Marxists in West Bengal to the national stage, Ms Banerjee forgot that her new alliance with the Samajwadi Party was built on sand. Mr Yadav was making a political point to the Congress, and after receiving suitable assurances from Mrs Gandhi, he left the Bengal leader high and dry. There was little profit for the Samajwadi Party teaming up with the Trinamul Congress and risk the Centre’s ire after it made its point of its indispensability to the United Progressive Alliance (UPA).
Indeed, the manner in which Ms Banerjee played her hand in Delhi hogging headlines makes her reconciliation with the Congress difficult, irrespective of the longevity of her formal partnership with the UPA. Instinctively, her immediate answer was to fly her flag of defiance on Facebook, instead of fielding embarrassing questions from the media face to face. Facebook and other social sites are new instruments in the armoury of politicians but are no substitute for direct interactions.
The process of states seizing greater power in relation to the Centre has been happening in recent years. With Dr Singh failing to present himself as a charismatic leader who wields power, this trend has accelerated. Over the decades, as the Congress lost its dominance in ruling the states, strong state leaders made their points forcefully. Apart from Narendra Modi in Gujarat, there were M. Karunanidhi followed by J. Jayalalithaa in Tamil Nadu, Mayawati in Uttar Pradesh and Nitish Kumar in Bihar, all of whom in different ways asserted their roles in a semi-federal polity.
The dilemma for the UPA is that the very reason Dr Singh was chosen for the post of Prime Minister by Mrs Gandhi in the first instance — his understated personality and lack of charisma — was to keep the Nehru-Gandhi family rule alive. But Mr Rahul Gandhi has failed to measure up thus far after his high profile role in the drubbing the party received in the Uttar Pradesh Assembly election and he has shown little sign of the will to take up a leadership position.
The manoeuvrings over the presidential election have again brought home the fact that it is a very political matter, despite the supposedly apolitical nature of the office. Indeed, the era of coalition politics at the Centre, with more than one party claiming majority, has only increased the importance of the presidency. If anyone had any illusions about the apolitical nature of the office, one has only to go back to the defeat of Neelam Sanjiva Reddy, the official candidate, by V.V. Giri after Indira Gandhi called for a conscience vote. In a desperate gesture, Ms Banerjee harked back to a conscience vote for the former President, Dr A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, after she had nowhere to hide.
The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has been seeking to profit from the follies of Ms Banerjee and the confusion in the Congress Party but is wrestling with its own problems as it decides to take its National Democratic Alliance (NDA) partners to an agreed position. Ultimately, its choice will be determined by what is advantageous to it in positioning for the 2014 parliamentary election. Despite Ms Banerjee’s desire to precipitate an early election, neither the BJP nor the NDA constituents are keen to advance the scheduled date in the hope that the UPA will sink deeper in public esteem by its inability to master events.
The present political crisis raises a larger question, whether the Constitution needs to be amended to signify the new trends in the polity. The fault, it seems, lies with the practitioners, rather than the structure. It is to the credit of Babasaheb Ambedkar and other framers of the Constitution that they had the foresight to build sufficient flexibility in it in anticipating events. An overhaul of the Constitution would require a consensus that promises to elude the fractured nature of today’s polity.
Those who have seen the evolution of party politics over the decades will regret the insults, if not the venom, in the language of political debate. Politics has seldom been a gentleman’s game but there was a certain civility in trading barbs. Ms Banerjee is a street fighter and recognises no binding norms in her political conduct, but others are of a different mould. Perhaps this sentiment was best expressed by a Janata Dal (United) Rajya Sabha member who, speaking out of turn, suggested that Mr Mukherjee should be supported for the presidency because he has chosen to retire from active politics after a notable innings and had always had time to listen to the other point of view.
As the consensus politician par excellence, it would be fitting to have Mr Mukherjee as President, as seems likely.