The events of Saturday that saw a major rupture in the Aam Aadmi Party(AAP) has shattered the promise that it once held out as a beacon of alternative politics. The AAP’s commitment to clean electoral politics, inner party democracy, and decentralisation of power has come apart within just two-and-a-half years. Leaders of other parties made no attempt to hide their glee at the implosion in India’s most promising political experiment in recent decades. The expulsion of activist-lawyer Prashant Bhushan and psephologist Yogendra Yadav from the party’s National Council for dissident activity is not really a surprise. No political party would have tolerated the acts of defiance exhibited by the two founder-leaders over the past one month or so. But in going down fighting, founder leaders Bhushan and Yadav have also demonstrated how the AAP has dramatically moved away from its fundamental ethos — the spirit that had defined the party and set it apart from the rest of the political class. From a party that awarded tickets through grass roots consultation, that set up an internal Lokpal, fielded activists leading peoples’ movements in elections, and collected funds transparently, the soul of the AAP — tragically — has come to be identified with the persona of Arvind Kejirwal and the coterie around him.

COMMERCIAL BREAK
SCROLL TO CONTINUE READING

With the skill to sway voters and enthuse cadres and the tireless energy to build a political organisation, it was only natural that Kejriwal would come to demand more powers. Unfortunately, in keeping with the conventional logic of political parties, he expected unconditional deference. True, this is the thumb rule of power relations within Indian party structures, which has now unceremoniously pushed Bhushan and Yadav by the wayside.

Undoubtedly, most political parties have witnessed messy power struggles. Wind back to Lalu Prasad Yadav’s rise in the Janata Dal forcing George Fernandes’ and Nitish Kumar’s exits. Or the Congress high command expelling Sharad Pawar. More recently, the BJP patriarch LK Advani was consigned to political irrelevance after Narendra Modi asserted his authority. Perhaps, few expected Kejriwal — with his combination of activist and professional credentials — to transform into an autocratic party supremo. Those taken in by his sanctimonious self-proclamations of being a “small man” will now perceive the Delhi Chief Minister in a new light. Through the incessant letter leaks, stings, press conferences and social media posts, the AAP’s commitment to inner-party democracy took a chaotic and self-defeating turn. One would seriously wonder whether the principle of inner-party democracy is in itself a misnomer in the Indian electoral system, as revealed by the AAP experience. 

Kejriwal’s confinement at Bengaluru, his refusal to meet the dissident duo, instead delegating a clique of loyalists to alternate between attacks and negotiations, has damaged his reputation for leading from the front. The emergence of two audio tapes of clandestinely recorded telephonic conversations, both featuring Kejriwal, have further diminished his image. While the earlier tape showed Kejriwal’s cunning use of manipulative politics, the latest sting exposes his use of abusive language and the extent of his “bhaichara”. However, the string of developments also reveals the limits of principled politics professed by his detractors. Neither Bhushan, the more vocal proponent of alternative politics, nor Yadav, have condemned such audio-taping of private conversations as antithetical to democratic party culture. The possibility, however distant, of AAP emerging as a national alternative has further receded. Whether the party can reclaim public goodwill and its credibility after such a dirty fight remains to be seen. But if the AAP’s goal is to stay rooted to Delhi, Kejriwal will simply have to focus on good governance.

Those dreaming of the elusive national political alternative must wait for another experiment to reveal itself. The AAP, clearly, has failed the test.