India is still relatively young as countries go. However, in the less than 60 years that it has been a self-governing democracy, it has seen its fair share of both triumph and turmoil. It also has found itself facing questions that more established democracies, such as our own, have not yet resolved. The refusal of Sonia Gandhi to become Prime Minister of India this past week highlights a number of these issues. For one, she is a woman, albeit in a country with a tradition of female leadership. She is also a member of one of India's predominant political families. She is a Catholic in a country where Hinduism is the dominant religion, and where faith is a very decisive issue. But perhaps the main reason she declined the position is that she is a foreign-born citizen of India.
As every newspaper article about her feels compelled to mention in its first sentence, Sonia Gandhi is Italian-born. She is the widow of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, son of Indira Gandhi, daughter of Nehru. This is a political heritage that must make Dubya salivate. But despite these connections to India and her participation in Indian politics, Mrs. Gandhi refused the office in the face of protests. Opponents argued that in a land where, according to the 1991 census, 82 percent of the nearly 850 million residents are Hindus, one of them should lead the government. Some speculate that her refusal was also motivated by threats against her and by the concern of her children for her safety (both her mother-in-law and husband were assassinated after taking office). The unwillingness of communist parties to join a governing coalition that would help maintain consensus also contributed. Whatever the cause, her refusal of the position of prime minister and the designation of Congress Party leader Manmohan Singh as prime minister-elect still indicate a step forward for India because of the defeat of the Hindu Nationalist BJP party.
The outcome of this Indian election is also important because of what it holds for politics in the United States. The issues of a candidate's gender, ethnicity and religion are ones that we have never fully resolved in our society. With the increasingly diverse nature of American society and the strong presence of immigrants, these are issues that have already started to become subjects of national debate.
The question of gender is perhaps most often discussed, since it seems that so many young girls -- as well as Hillary Clinton -- dream of being the first female president. In the roughly 80 years since women gained the vote, they have made much progress. However, the election of a woman president still seems unlikely in the near future, although Hillary Clinton is widely expected to seek the Democratic nomination in 2008 if Bush defeats Kerry in November. In this sense, India is far ahead of us, since Indira Gandhi served as prime minister in the 1980s.
While gender may be important in the next presidential election, the issue of religion is prominent in the current race for the White House. America, despite the separation of church and state, does have a "civil religion," in which we place ourselves under the protection of one god. This may pose problems in the future, when candidates from pluralistic or atheist traditions are asked to swear on the Christian Bible. We also have a calendar and much legislation based around a Christian system. Would a Muslim executive be able to work on Friday, the Muslim Sabbath? How would a Hindu who considers cows sacred feel about ordering the slaughter of animals suspected of being infected with mad cow disease?
Even candidates from monotheistic traditions with larger constituencies in the United States face scrutiny. Joe Lieberman's Orthodox Judaism became an issue in the 2000 election. John Kerry's Catholicism has come into conflict with his pro-abortion stance, and he has faced criticism from religious leaders. This raises questions about whether a political candidate should obey dictates from religious authority. As candidates from these traditions become more prominent, the role religion plays in government must be dealt with.
The most important and most controversial of the issues raised by Gandhi, however, is that of the birthplace of a candidate. In this country, Gandhi would not have been eligible for the presidency, since Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution requires the U.S. President to be natural-born. As our country continues to increase in diversity, this requirement has been increasingly challenged. Many argue that it is unfair to exclude people who may come to this country as children and view it as their homeland. Others argue, however, that naturalized citizens may have residual obligations and loyalties to their native land. This is clearly a delicate topic, and one that is especially relevant in light of both the diversification of the U.S. population and our position in the world order.
India has found a temporary solution to these issues of an executive's gender, religion and ethnicity by sidestepping the question. However, they will eventually have to resolve them, as will we. As our society becomes more diverse, our attitudes and legislation must grapple with and adjust to these changes. But whatever the outcome, there are a few things to remember. If gender and religion are no longer issues, then White House here I come. And if we do decide to allow naturalized citizens to run for our nation's highest office, we may see the Governator try to become Mr. President. And that may be scarier than all of Governor Schwarzenegger's movies combined.
