Indian Express Editorial Analysis: February 19, 2025

---

2. 2025 African Union Commission election: Why Djibouti foreign minister Mahmoud Ali Youssouf’s win is good news for India

The election of Mahmoud Ali Youssouf as the new African Union Commission (AUC) chairperson marks a strategic shift within the African Union (AU). His victory over strong contenders like Kenya’s Raila Odinga reflects broader geopolitical trends within Africa, including regional power dynamics, Francophone influence, and leadership preferences. For India, Youssouf’s leadership presents a crucial opportunity to strengthen engagement with Africa, particularly given Djibouti’s strategic location in the Indian Ocean.

Key Aspects of Youssouf’s Election

1. Regional and Political Factors
   • Eastern Africa’s Turn: The AU follows a rotational system, and this time, Eastern Africa was responsible for providing the chair.
   • Kenya’s Strong Bid: Raila Odinga, backed by President William Ruto, was a strong contender but faced resistance, partly due to his past as a Prime Minister and multiple presidential bids.
   • Djibouti’s Advantage: Youssouf, despite being from a smaller nation, had diplomatic experience but no political ambitions that could threaten AU leaders, making him a more acceptable candidate.
2. Geopolitical Trends in AU Elections
   • Preference for Smaller Nations: The AU prefers electing chairpersons from smaller countries like Djibouti, Mali, Gabon, and Chad, ensuring they remain neutral arbiters rather than powerful political figures.
   • Francophone and Arab League Influence: The dominance of Francophone and Arab-backed candidates in AU elections continues, limiting the influence of Anglophone and Commonwealth-backed candidates.
   • Gender Disparity Persists: The deputy chairperson post went to Algeria’s Salma Hadid, showing that while gender representation is encouraged, the top leadership remains male-dominated.

Implications for India

1. Potential for Stronger India-Africa Ties
   • Unlike his predecessor Faki Mahamat, who distanced the AU from India, Youssouf has actively engaged with India in past diplomatic events.
   • His participation in India-Africa Forum Summits and appreciation for India’s role in Africa signal a positive shift in AU-India relations.
2. Strategic Importance of Djibouti
   • Djibouti sits at the crossroads of major maritime routes, making it a critical location for India’s Indo-Pacific strategy.
   • China has military and economic influence in Djibouti, with its first overseas military base there. Youssouf’s leadership could provide India with a counterbalance to Chinese influence in the region.
3. Revival of India-AU Engagement
   • Under Mahamat, AU-India relations stagnated, with efforts to shift the India-Africa Forum Summit (IAFS) to neutral locations like Mauritania, reducing India’s role.
   • Youssouf’s tenure could ensure greater Indian involvement in AU affairs, potentially leading to a successful IAFS-IV in 2025.

Conclusion
Mahmoud Ali Youssouf’s election as AUC chairperson presents an opportunity for India to reset and strengthen its ties with the African Union. With Djibouti’s strategic location in the Indian Ocean and Youssouf’s past engagement with India, New Delhi can leverage this leadership change to deepen economic, diplomatic, and security cooperation with Africa. If India moves proactively, this shift can enhance its influence in African geopolitics and counter growing Chinese dominance in the region.

---

3. Tamil Nadu’s governor vs government tussle exposes the hollowness of ‘cooperative federalism’

The ongoing confrontation between Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi and the state government led by CM M.K. Stalin highlights the growing tensions in India’s quasi-federal system. The governor’s delay in approving 12 bills for over a year has reignited the debate on the role of governors, the misuse of constitutional provisions, and the hollow nature of “cooperative federalism.”

Governor’s Role and Constitutional Ambiguity
Under Article 200 of the Indian Constitution, when a state legislature passes a bill, the governor has three options:

1. Grant Assent – The bill becomes law.
2. Withhold Assent – The bill is effectively rejected.
3. Reserve for Presidential Consideration – The bill is sent to the President for a final decision.

However, the absence of a fixed time frame for these actions has led to governors indefinitely delaying bills, a practice often termed a “pocket veto.”The Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling on a similar issue in Punjab mandated that governors must act “as soon as possible,” but without specific deadlines, the judgment failed to prevent delays. The Tamil Nadu case now pending before the Supreme Court could set a crucial precedent in resolving such conflicts.

Political and Historical Context

1. A Colonial Legacy Turned Political Tool
   • The British-era governor was an imperial agent overseeing local governments. Post-independence, the role was meant to be ceremonial, but over time, it has become a political tool.
   • Governors are appointed by the President on the Centre’s recommendation, often leading to bias against opposition-ruled states.
2. Partisanship in Governor Appointments
   • Many governors are retired politicians or bureaucrats, making their neutrality questionable.
   • Several instances of governor-state clashes have emerged, including Kerala (over university appointments), Telangana (delayed healthcare bills), and Maharashtra (Uddhav Thackeray’s ousting).
3. Attempts at Reform
   • Private member bills have been introduced in Rajya Sabha to either abolish the governor’s office or reform appointment and removal processes.
   • In 2024, MP Priyanka Chaturvedi proposed a bill suggesting a selection panel involving the PM, Chief Justice, and CM, alongside an impeachment process and a four-month deadline for governors to act on bills.
   • The Sarkaria Commission (1988) and Punchhi Commission (2010) recommended reforms, but they remain unimplemented.

Implications for Federalism and Democracy

1. Weakening of State Autonomy
   • India’s system is quasi-federal, meaning states do not have full autonomy. The governor’s power to withhold or delay bills undermines state governments’ legislative authority.
2. Legal and Political Fallout
   • If the Supreme Court rules against the governor, it may set time limits on gubernatorial actions, strengthening federalism.
   • A pro-governor ruling could embolden more delays, further straining Centre-state relations.
3. The Need for Urgent Reforms
   • India must define clear timelines for governors to act on bills.
   • A non-partisan appointment process can prevent politically motivated decisions.
   • Federalism should empower states, not restrict them through appointed officials.

Conclusion
The Tamil Nadu governor’s inaction is not an isolated case but part of a larger trend where governors function as political gatekeepers rather than neutral constitutional authorities. The Supreme Court’s decision will determine whether India’s federal structure remains robust or tilts further toward centralization. However, lasting change requires constitutional amendments and public pressure to ensure governors serve their intended role—as facilitators, not obstacles, of democracy.