Kejriwal Private Limited

Are we witnessing the end of the first experiment of alternative politics which came in with a bang two years back with the formation of the Aam Aadmi Party? It is ironical that this question should be relevant so soon after the unprecedented victory of AAP in the last Delhi assembly elections, not even two months back. All the promises made to end corruption, starting with rejecting money and muscle power in election, to instal transparent and accountable governance, to smash VIP culture, to open the doors for ordinary citizens to stand for elections have collapsed right before us in a short span of time. The promise of participatory decision-making or Swaraj appears altogether like a mockery.

There are over a thousand registered political parties in the country. When it comes to winning elections most of them do not pass the test. AAP performed well from the start. In the last Delhi assembly elections it performed brilliantly.

The party’s leader Arvind Kejriwal emerged as a winner whose score was 67 out of 70. He also emerged as the only face, the only voice and the undisputed dictator of the party. He dictates the terms, takes no questions and cannot stand dissent. He is the Chief Minister of Delhi and the convener of the party. He is still not the Lokpal! He has openly said that winning the elections is his party’s main aim and those who are sceptical should leave, will be thrown out. The cost of winning is immaterial. Songs on humanity and talk of opposing VIP culture have all evaporated. People are left staring at the unexpected beast shaping up in the name of alternative politics. 

Some loyal advisers of yesterday were recently dropped, not merely like hot potatoes but, with a “kick on their backside” to quote Mr Kejriwal from the latest sting. They had an excellent record of faithfulness to the leader and of administering the stick to any lone voice of dissent. They know that the leader dislikes questions and dissidence is blasphemy in this alternative politics of ‘Swaraj’ and transparency. These high party functionaries — turned overnight into nobodies and now termed ‘rebels’ — made a feeble attempt to assert themselves. The leader left them at the mercy of his trusted team and went to recoup his health in the country’s best five-star nature cure centre. The problem continued, so the high command told the rejects to resign. When they resisted, and persisted with their questioning, the leader got very angry. At the National Council meeting of AAP, which was held in a resort owned by one of the newly elected MLA’s, bouncers and boxers were hired to settle matters physically. It must be said for AAP that it showed an unexpected turn of imagination to sort out physically, a not-altogether physical problem! Swaraj or participatory democracy, on which Kejriwal had written a book, has seldom taken such imaginative turns! From all accounts, the leader turned a dictator himself, left the meeting for an undisclosed ‘more important meeting’, letting the boxers and bouncers take over. This left a brave founder member with a broken leg because he had said that the so-called rebels deserve a chance to explain themselves.

With this, a novel face of Swaraj under dictatorship, marinated in VIP culture and hypocrisy, flew free. How should one describe the statement of the party spokesman that the broken leg of the founder-member was an accident and, it was not a bouncer but a loyal party worker who merely removed the injured member from the meeting hall? Since then that injured member has complained formally to the police. Another braveheart, Dharamvir Gandhi, AAP MP has openly criticised the events of the National Council meeting. We are yet to see how the leader through his cronies, deals with this affront.

And yet, the drama called AAP has taken the form of a black comedy on TV. Some analysts say that the party of alternative politics has been too bold! That is why it lost some of its sheen. Others say that AAP’s future depends on how well and how soon its leader can deliver the promises that were made to the electorate, but on nothing else. So what, if the party leadership wants the perks which rightfully belong to VIPs? So what, if compromises were made in collecting and spending funds or selecting candidates of dubious records under the banner of  ‘imandar’ politics? Isn’t this true of all political parties? So what, if it emerges that the only way to fight corruption is not by putting systems in place but by establishing a culture of sting operations to turn Delhi into a house of spies and counter-spies? Fighting corruption, it may be recalled, was the very reason for starting this experiment of alternative politics. Arvind Kejriwal needs to be reminded of this.

Some people had found it attractive when Kejriwal said that he did not believe in Ideology. He was going to steer the course not on the basis of stated priorities, but in tackling problems as they come. On this he has been puzzlingly consistent. To an audience of industrialists he says that the business of government is not to do business. On the handling of a highly lucrative gas basin by a leading industrial house he levelled charges of corruption along with his then colleague Prashant Bhusan. Corruption in policy formulation he normally avoided unless he could target individuals in a blame game. This hardly works with corrupt social practices. So he took the same ambiguous line of least resistance. Khap panchayats are acceptable as traditional institutions for sorting out social problems. ‘Prostitutes’ should be chased and removed, especially if they are black Africans, preferably in the dead of night in acts of vigilantism. Women’s security should be placed squarely in the hands of the police, regardless of the large numbers of known cases of rape of women in police custody.

Should one dare say the experiment of alternative politics is appearing dangerous, especially when the first attempt to introduce participatory democracy suddenly takes the shape of inner party differences being settled by hired boxers and bouncers at a meeting where delegates are not allowed to carry mobile phones and pens (for fear of stings) much less express their views? This is certainly a far cry from transparency and accountability which were both AAP mantras. Has the fight against corruption also been lost like a file which is untraceable in the corridors of power? 

The questions are unending. And yet, the one that dominates is: Is alternative politics possible within the present corrupt electoral system? AAP certainly has not provided the answer.

The writer is a founder member of the Aam Aadmi Party