Home
Polity-Mains-PYQ

Critically examine the procedures through which the Presidents of India and France are elected. UPSC Mains 2022(15 Marks, 250 words)

Amith

Presidents of India and France
Presidents of India and France

✅ Question (GS Paper II – 2022):

“Critically examine the procedures through which the Presidents of India and France are elected.”(15 Marks, 250 words)

1. Keyword-Based Analysis

  • Directive Word: Critically examine
    → Requires breaking down the procedure, highlighting strengths and weaknesses, and offering a balanced analysis.

  • Key Concepts:

    • Procedure of election

    • President of India

    • President of France

2. Demand of the Question

UPSC wants:

  • A comparative constitutional analysis of how both Presidents are elected

  • Assessment of democratic legitimacy, inclusiveness, representation, transparency

  • Highlights on similarities, differences, and institutional consequences

Dimensions to cover:

  • Election process (direct/indirect, stages)

  • Electoral college or electorate

  • Tenure and eligibility

  • Role of the President in both systems

  • Critique: Is the process fair, democratic, and representative?

3. Ideal Structure of the Answer

Introduction:

  • Briefly introduce both countries as republics with different forms of government.

  • Mention the contrast: India (Parliamentary) vs France (Semi-presidential)

Body:

A. Election of President in India

  • Indirect election via electoral college (Article 54)

  • Proportional representation with single transferable vote

  • Electoral college: Elected MPs + elected MLAs

  • Nomination requirements

  • Secret ballot; tenure: 5 years (Article 56)

B. Election of President in France

  • Direct election by citizens (two-round system)

  • Universal adult franchise

  • If no candidate gets 50%+ in the first round, a runoff is held

  • Tenure: 5 years (reduced from 7 years by 2000 reform)

C. Critical Comparison

Feature India France
Type of Election Indirect Direct (Two-Round System)
Electorate MPs + MLAs (elected only) Citizens (universal adult franchise)
Role of President Largely ceremonial Active executive powers
Democratic legitimacy Indirect, representative High – Direct popular mandate
Transparency & simplicity Complex, weighted votes Simple and mass-participative

D. Criticism and Analysis

  • India:

    • Less public participation

    • Complex vote weight system

    • Mostly symbolic office → questions over need for such elaborate election

  • France:

    • Legitimacy clash with PM (dual executive)

    • Risk of populism

    • High politicization of presidential role

✅ Populism: Simple Meaning

Populism means a leader or party tries to win people's support by saying:

"I am with you, the common people, and I will fight against the powerful elites who are ignoring you."

They often promise quick solutions to people's problems, even if those solutions are not practical.

✅ Very Simple Example (India):

Suppose a leader says:

“The rich and powerful have looted the country. I will give ₹15 lakh to every citizen and teach them a lesson!”

➡️ This sounds attractive to common people.
➡️ But it may be unrealistic.
➡️ Still, the leader gains popularity = Populist approach.

Conclusion:

Both systems reflect their constitutional frameworks. While India opts for federal balance through an indirect method, France ensures mass legitimacy via direct election due to its powerful presidential role. Reform should focus on improving transparency and reducing institutional friction.

4. Model Enriched Answer (250 Words)

India and France, both republics, elect their Presidents through constitutionally defined procedures, yet their approaches reflect differing political philosophies.

In India, the President is elected indirectly by an electoral college comprising elected MPs and elected MLAs (Article 54), using proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote. The process seeks to maintain federal balance and parliamentary supremacy, given the ceremonial nature of the President's role. However, criticisms include its complexity, lack of public participation, and symbolic value given the limited powers of the office.

In contrast, France, under its semi-presidential system, elects its President through direct universal suffrage, employing a two-round voting system. If no candidate achieves a majority in the first round, a runoff is held between the top two. Given the executive powers vested in the French President — including foreign policy and national defense — the direct election ensures popular legitimacy.

While India's method strengthens federalism and represents diverse political units, it lacks direct democratic legitimacy. On the other hand, France's model, while participative, sometimes results in cohabitation conflicts when the President and Prime Minister belong to opposing parties, leading to policy gridlock.

Hence, both procedures are products of their constitutional contexts. As political systems evolve, periodic reforms and debates around transparency, participation, and institutional harmony remain critical to upholding democratic values.

5. Value Addition Tips

  • Diagram: Comparative table of features (as above)

  • Flowchart: Stages of election in India vs France

  • Constitutional Articles:

    • India: Articles 52–62

    • France: Article 6 of the 1958 Constitution

  • Contemporary Example: 2022 Indian Presidential election (Droupadi Murmu), 2022 French Presidential election (Emmanuel Macron’s re-election)

  • Committee Mention: Sarkaria Commission emphasized importance of federal spirit in Presidential elections

6. Common Mistakes to Avoid

  • Writing only India or only France in detail – must compare both

  • Ignoring why the method is used (context of constitutional design)

  • Missing out on criticism → required by directive “critically examine”

  • Using vague phrases like "India is democratic" without analysis

Detailed Sample Answer:

Introduction:

The office of the President in both India and France represents the head of the State, but the election procedures and powers differ significantly due to their constitutional frameworks. India follows a parliamentary system, while France follows a semi-presidential system, which shapes how their Presidents are elected and function.

Election of the President in India:

  • Indirect election through an electoral college:

    • Elected MPs of both Houses of Parliament.

    • Elected MLAs of State Legislative Assemblies and UTs (with legislatures).

  • Proportional representation by means of single transferable vote.

  • Value of vote differs for MPs and MLAs to ensure federal balance.

  • Requires absolute majority (more than 50% of total valid votes).

✅ Merits:

  • Ensures federal representation.

  • Maintains the ceremonial nature of the office under a parliamentary system.

⚠️ Criticism:

  • Common people have no direct role.

  • The process is often influenced by political alignments, not merit.

  • Lacks transparency and is largely symbolic due to limited powers.

Election of the President in France:

  • Direct election by the people through universal adult franchise.

  • Conducted in two rounds:

    • If no candidate gets an absolute majority in the first round, the top two face off in a second round.

  • Term: 5 years (reduced from 7 in 2000).

✅ Merits:

  • Ensures direct legitimacy and a strong mandate.

  • President exercises real executive powers along with the Prime Minister.

⚠️ Criticism:

  • Can lead to cohabitation — friction between President and PM from different parties.

  • Concentration of power in the executive.

Conclusion:

The Indian model emphasizes parliamentary supremacy and ceremonial presidency, while the French model empowers the President with direct legitimacy and executive authority. While both systems reflect their historical and political needs, each has strengths and flaws. Reforms in India may improve transparency and public engagement, whereas in France, checks and balances are needed to prevent executive dominance.

Post a Comment