The recent charges of corruption levelled by Kapil Mishra against Arvind Kejriwal, questioning the personal integrity of the self-proclaimed messiah of the anti-corruption crusade, adds to a list of controversies that the Aam Aadmi Party faces since it took office in Delhi two years ago. As the AAP seems to be collapsing under the weight of alleged misdeeds and controversies, one wonders what went wrong with the party and its firebrand leader, Mr Kejriwal, who had caught the nation’s imagination ever since the AAP was launched in November 2012. There seems to be major structural deficiencies within the party, glaring contradictions in its polity and style of functioning.
It’s an undisputed fact that the AAP begins and ends with Mr Kejriwal. Anyone daring to question him must go. If just after coming to power, some founding members like Yogendra Yadav and Prashant Bhushan are humiliated and shown the door, it not only shows the AAP’s inability to absorb dissent, but also raises questions on the sanctity of principles like internal democracy and transparency in decision-making — the fundamentals on which the AAP was formed.
Personality cults are nothing new in Indian politics. Such cults grew around late Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, as well as current PM Narendra Modi. There are also regional leaders like Mamata Banerjee and the late J. Jayalalithaa. However, a cult grew around these leaders only after they had been in politics for years, with substantial political or administrative achievements to showcase. Indira Gandhi had her moment of triumph in the Bangladesh liberation war, and again her glorious re-emergence after the post-Emergency debacle. Mr Modi had his “Gujarat model of development” to showcase, whether real or perceived is another matter. Ms Banerjee had to fight on the streets of West Bengal for over 25 years to demolish the Left Front. Jayalalithaa was a AIADMK general secretary and Rajya Sabha member before she took control of the party and introduced her own brand of politics with populist pro-poor schemes like the Amma canteens. While Mr Kejriwal could identify and ride on the people’s anger against the perceived corruption of the incumbent government in particular and the functioning of traditional parties in general, his cult was developed on the basis of hope; not on past achievements, but on the promise of future delivery. But after taking office, he could not deliver on his promises and meet voters’ expectations. Mere rhetoric can’t sustain a personality cult for long. The bubble was bound to burst sooner rather than later.
Mr Kejriwal’s ambitions seem to march ahead faster than his ability and experience as a political leader and administrator. He had his “Veni, Vidi, Vici” moment in Delhi. But to replicate that in other states, he needed far more than free wi-fi promises and a Rs 526-crore advertisement budget. Political parties need to have a solid grassroot organisation with strong local leadership, which is something that can’t be built overnight. Effectively, there are only two national parties in India — the Congress and the BJP. The Congress is India’s oldest party, while the BJP had to struggle for years to reach where it has today. From 1984, where it had just two Lok Sabha seats and not a single state government, it has taken the party 33 years to reach its current position. The AAP lacks a solid organisational base and credible local leadership in the states where it wants to fight elections. It is working in reverse order; not giving enough time to build an organisation and local leadership and then fight elections, but first deciding on the states where it wants to contest, and then trying to gather followers, mostly a bunch of inexperienced opportunists. One can’t win elections, as Mr Kejriwal hoped to do in Punjab and Goa, with “imported” leaders and volunteers from Delhi.
The AAP has not provided any vision or alternative ideology to replace the existing national parties. The sole agenda of anti-corruption can’t substitute for a substantive political ideology. Anti-corruption should in fact be the one of the most basic and natural components for any political party. Which party would say it’s not against corruption? It’s not the words, but deeds that count. In just two years, the allegations of corruption and nepotism now tumbling out of the AAP’s cupboard put it at par with much older traditional parties.
Mr Kejriwal’s style of politics, that put him in power, is also now backfiring. The politics of confrontation might be suitable while in Opposition, it doesn’t help in running a government. His personal attacks on political rivals, including the Prime Minister, indicate an intellectual inability to analyse, criticise or attack at policy levels. The constant blame game is an attempt to hide his inexperience and inability to govern. Let’s not forget India has a federal system that allows different parties heading the Centre and various state governments to co-exist and govern. While parties may fight, there has to be cooperation and coordination between governments to ensure smooth governance. Delhi has a complex administrative structure, but earlier governments have functioned and delivered under these same complexities.
The chikungunya and dengue epidemics, the garbage strewn on the streets, the repeated strikes by government employees over non-payment of salaries, ceaseless controversies over forged degrees, nepotism, corruption charges against senior leaders, with the latest allegation being against Mr Kejriwal personally, the decline in revenue collection in past two years that puts Delhi in danger of becoming a revenue-deficit state from a revenue-surplus one, the constant bickering and blame games have punctured the myth of the AAP’s good governance. The party seems to be collapsing like a house of cards under the weight of myriad controversies, internal rebellion and its own overambitious agenda. Only time will tell if its leader has the political acumen and ability to pull it out of the current mess, or whether the AAP will also follow many other erstwhile parties into oblivion and become a mere footnote in India’s contemporary political history.
