#dnaEdit: No way to fight

The rebellion fomented by Yogendra Yadav and Prashant Bhushan, after accusing Arvind Kejriwal of subverting inner-party democracy and sidelining party structures, and the counter-accusations against Yadav and Bhushan by the official camp have brought the Aam Aadmi Party’s frailties to the fore. Yadav appears to be miffed that AAP is not in a hurry to enter the electoral battleground in other states. His disappointment at AAP not contesting the recent Haryana elections is also evident. In recent days, letters written by AAP’s internal lokpal retired Admiral L Ramdas mourning the growing factionalism in the party, a note by Bhushan warning against AAP becoming another “one-man party”, a joint letter by Yadav and Bhushan pressing their point, and a letter by AAP Delhi convener Dilip Pandey, have been leaked to the media. Pandey’s letter makes damaging personal accusations against Yadav, Prashant Bhushan and his father Shanti Bhushan of openly working against the party’s interests. The public spat between Kejriwal, Bhushan and Yadav — clearly the three most prominent faces in the AAP — also showcases the contradictions between actual practice and the ideals that political parties profess. 

Within the AAP, there is no rival to Kejriwal in terms of political instincts, charisma or popularity. It is only natural then that both cadre and leaders gravitate towards him for guidance. That the AAP’s internal dynamic has shifted from democracy towards centralisation is but natural. The primacy of the Gandhi-Nehrus, Narendra Modi, Mulayam Singh and Lalu Prasad Yadav, in their respective parties have followed this logic. It is commendable that Bhushan has raised this issue, but given the internal dynamic of political party organisations, a satisfactory resolution may not ensue. However, the dominant discourse in the party is in favour of Kejriwal to prove himself as an administrator. After the unsavoury letter leaks, it is unlikely that Kejriwal, despite intending to focus more on government than party, will accommodate a national co-convener, to aid him in discharge of duties. The bickering in the AAP has its roots in the decision to contest the Lok Sabha elections on a national scale. Except for Punjab, the party drew a blank everywhere, even in its stronghold, Delhi. Yadav, a reputed psephologist, was blamed for the debacle. Soon after the AAP’s impressive electoral debut in December 2013, Yadav had tweeted “Ab Haryana ki baari”, and made no bones about his ambitions of being projected as the party’s foremost leader in the state.

There was no palpable indication that neighbouring Haryana was ready for a similar AAP surge as in Delhi, but Kejriwal and Co went along with Yadav’s appraisal of the situation.

Prashant Bhushan’s break with Kejriwal appears to have stemmed from the latter relying more on a closed coterie rather than the party’s formal structures like the National Executive(NE) and the Political Advisory Committee(PAC) in selecting candidates, deciding the party’s national strategy and engendering transparency. Bhushan had raised objections to the selection of 12 candidates with dubious credentials and subsequently boycotted the Delhi election campaign. Now, it appears that Bhushan and Yadav have found common cause and joined hands. There are many valid contentions made by Bhushan. His demand for pro-active online disclosure of expenses, allowing state committees more freedoms, auditing of MLALAD funds, and regular NE and PAC meetings, and focus on ethics are laudable. In their impatience, Yadav and Bhushan now find themselves isolated in the AAP. Rather than fight their battles internally in a disciplined manner, both men, by making a public spectacle of their disagreements, reveal a lack of stomach for the rough and tumble of party politics.