And I thought I was the cynic. President Kalam suggests he may want to stick around in office and everyone disapproves. He now says he doesn't - and there's cheering all around. Running for office, aspiring to represent our country is for power hungry politicians. Declining to stand is what our icons must do.

And so President Kalam, arguably our most popular president retires from the list- pride and image, slightly hurt. And I am still left baffled at the undemocratic instincts of the world's largest democracy. Consensus, clearly is not all its cracked up to be.

In a previous blog, I wrote about Kalam as a possible candidate, and what he meant to the office:

"Our lovable, long-haired scientist built a lasting legacy at Rashtrapati Bhawan. Coming from the world of missiles, neutrons and protons, fission and fusion, Kalam literally broken down the barriers around the presidential office, and many now call him the People's President. Like Princess Diana, he reached out over the heads of political leaders- directly to the people he met. And made lakhs of fans and friends, young and old. He spoke to them in words they understood (Repeat after me, he would begin, .......). He put a 'Children's Corner' on his official presidential website. He became the accessible face of an otherwise inaccessible establishment. My kids were amongst thousands of students who wrote him birthday cards each year. Doesn't he deserve to run for President again?"

What's more, the CPI(M) may contest the validity of sms polls, emails and letters to the editor, but just random samples of people we spoke to on camera almost unanimously said they wanted Kalam back.

Columns are now criticizing Kalam for his "Final Mis-step". To consider standing for election. I say the mis-step is about refusing to fight. Each time someone declines a post for the sake of keeping an image, it only serves to devalue the office in question.

It now leaves in the reckoning, his deputy. Shekhawat, who would be a great solid candidate- except that the dithering over nominating him for President is rivaled only by the uncertainty we saw in 2002, when his name was first proposed for Vice-President. The Kalam near-candidature has taken away some of his official cachet, the Pratibha Patil nomination, cuts at his Rajasthani votebase.

Its Patil v/s Shekhawat. And if Patil wins, which seems likely (notwithstanding a few outstanding bank loans)- we'll have two firsts. A woman for President, and the first Vice-President to lose the Presidential election.

And it leaves me to mourn the presidential race we nearly had- (even though none of us are eligible to vote).

During every election, local, state, and parliament, I hear the same crib from those I meet- why bother voting, when your choices are so lousy. Why go and choose between the feudal, and the openly communal, the corrupt, the criminal or the rioter. What about an option on the ballot paper for 'none of the above', they say?

But when we get those options, like those between the first credible woman candidate and a man with both street cred and great performance in the office, we demur and speak of consensus.

Have a debate on merit for once, not on caste and family, region, and religion. And take pride in people wanting to run for office, not turning it down, just because they may or may not win.

Consensus is for feudal empires, I say, not for democracies.