Will AAP's idea of alternative politics bite the dust?

‘Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely’ is an old saying used many a time. Arvind Kejriwal is merely trying to be the latest example. Despite the mistake of resigning after 49 days, Delhi’s electorate reposed faith in him, expecting him to focus on governance and troubles ailing the common man. Instead, Kejriwal has preferred to strengthen his cinch over the party. Post 1971, Indira Gandhi did exactly the same thing after the historic victory in the Bangladesh Liberation War. Her moves were called a Stalinist purge which finally ended with an emergency. To cite another example from contemporary history, Narendra Modi too, ostracised senior leaders of the BJP and made his Man Friday Amit Shah the party chief to get total control of the party.

All the major political parties have differences within, based on attitude, style and ideology. But the manner in which the leadership handles these issues proves to be the decisive factor. In most parties, they are suppressed and rebels are shown the door. Unfortunately, AAP, which claims to be different than the others, has dealt with it in an identical manner. If Yogendra Yadav and Prashant Bhushan did indeed work against the party, the leadership had all the rights to expel them. But while doing this, the due democratic process had to be followed. Kejriwal, though, did not even pretend to be democratic. In AAP's national council meeting, he showed profound disregard towards the due process as he began the meeting with his own speech and asked the members to choose between him and the rebels. He did not even care to listen to anybody. There can't be two opinions about Kejriwal's popularity. AAP's success owes everything to it. But that is precisely why he should be more responsible with his actions. If a supremo of the party disregards democracy and nurtures sycophancy, it sends a dangerous message, not just to the electorate but also volunteers. Kejriwal must not forget the contribution of those selfless volunteers who worked day and night for the party. However, the national executive meeting suggests that AAP is merely following the footsteps of other parties. There were brawls, altercations and the use of bouncers was also alleged. Had Kejriwal allowed the other group to speak, it would have sent out a positive message. It would have been appropriate as well. But the absence of it resulted in the rebels boycotting the meeting, thereby a one way traffic of Kejriwal.

The most shocking and deplorable part was the insult of Admiral Ramdas, the party's internal Lokpal. AAP was born out of a movement for Lokpal and to see the internal Lokpal being handed the mitten without any intimation just because he raised some pertinent questions regarding the functioning of the party, was a tragic paradox. Moreover, the party leadership tried to couch it, saying his decided time had expired. Kejriwal did not even deem it necessary to explain the treatment meted out to a respected man like Ramdas, manifesting the degradation of discourse within the party.

After the removal of Ramdas, a three member Lokpal panel was set up. All the three are Delhiites and part of Kejriwal's coterie. The members featuring in other AAP committees are also his fan boys. The subtext of these changes is: you are allowed to express your opinion in the party as long as you agree with Kejriwal. Now what is the difference between AAP and Sonia-Rahul's Congress and Modi's BJP? Or for that matter RJD, Shiv Sena and Trinamool or other traditional parties? Kejriwal may have felt victorious after sidelining Yadav and Bhushan, but it has dented his image as a transparent leader. It seems to have become his private limited company.

This is not to justify all the actions of Yadav and Bhushan. Though the points they raised were important, their impatience hurt the party. Without giving enough time to the leadership to ponder on the issues, they made their demands public. No party can transform overnight. But the duo kept harping on their agenda. Socialists always fail to understand this balance. When the Janata Party got divided in 1979, Madhu Limaye had done a similar thing. The reasons behind the Socialist Party's disintegration were identical. Dr. Lohiya had brought down the government of his own party in Kerala. Insistence on principles is commendable as long as the practicality remains intact. Yadav and Bhushan have repeated the same mistakes of socialists in India.

Amidst all the mess though, one feels for the volunteers and sympathisers of the party. The young volunteers had been attracted to the party because of its idealism. The middle class, which had gotten sick of the usual politics in the country, held high hopes from AAP. They expected a different political culture in the party. Transparency, honesty and democracy were top on their agenda, but instead they saw a shameless exhibition of sycophancy. This has damaged AAP and Kejriwal permanently. They may win elections, but their credibility is damaged forever.

Can AAP overcome this crisis? Yes, Kejriwal still has time to set things right. He can still bounce back from this crisis like he did after resigning in 49 days, if he realises his mistakes and corrects them. People will definitely forgive him as they did in the Delhi elections. But if he refuses to do that, AAP's idea of an alternative politics will bite the dust.