Decoding AAP

An anarchist by admission, an aam aadmi by rendition and a strategist in transition.  Yes, Arvind Kejriwal is the man behind these words. Every now and then, this muffler clad man has had the audacity of challenging the system. He is gifted with an uncanny ability of gauging public perception and sifting right through it. From an anti- establishment crusader to a now emerging political behemoth, the Aam Aadmi Party has come a long way. But Kejriwal who has risen like a righteously indignant messiah railing against corruption, corporate nepotism, criminalisation of politics and politicisation of crime is in danger of losing moral high ground.

His populist act of renunciation of the Chief Minister’s chair has plagued the entire nation with scepticism and apprehension not only regarding the future of the Assembly of Delhi but also the way AAP has portrayed itself as the herald of change. India is in a democratic and political metamorphosis and AAP has rightly tapped into this democracy deficit, promising to bring governance closer to the people. But is its abdication of power a tactical masterstroke? It is politics unlimited this electoral season and it remains to be seen whether this gamble will backfire upon AAP or will they reap rich dividends.

Thwarted from introducing the Delhi Jan Lokpal Bill, Arvind Kejriwal resigned on February 14 disregarding people’s mandate and extenuating the goodwill bestowed by the electorate. This act bore testimony to the fact that the ideology of AAP is populist and not pro people. In his defence Kejriwal reinstated that “When we tried to pass the Delhi Jan Lokpal, the Congress and the BJP ganged up to stall it. People from the Congress and the BJP know if this law is brought in, their leaders will end up in jail.” Had Mr. Kejriwal shown restrain in wending out his political weapon, he would have noticed that according to Section 22(3) of the Government of India NDTC Act 1991, “Any bill which involves expenditure from the consolidated fund of the capital cannot be passed by the Legislative Assembly unless it has been approved by the Lieutenant Governor.”In the light of this the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi even consulted the Solicitor General of India, who confirmed that the bill could not go to the assembly without the former’s permission.

This narrative raises severe questions on AAP’s morality and it’s holier than thou attitude. Couldn’t the AAP have pursued the bill lawfully in the Delhi assembly? Or was the resignation always a part of their game plan to garner political capital? The AAP has often conveyed a disregard for rules, suggesting that they are empty protocols that exist to serve a corrupt system. All too often, it has ended up showing a dangerous contempt for the rule of law itself, treating warrants as mere niceties, trying to arm organised crowds with sweeping powers over local government bodies. This time, the Jan Lokpal has simply hit a wall — the law of the land.

 “We end up being exactly who we said we’d never be!” This analogy suits AAP reasonably well.  During its short 49 day stint, the Delhi government did exactly what it has accused others of: favouring its benefactors. The AAP’s 50% subsidy to electricity bill defaulters during their bijli-paani movement could be read as a signal to the electorate that you are either with us, or against us. The AAP’s subsidy goes against the grain of constitutionally mandated principles of equality that the government sanctions relief to its “supporters” alone. The Supreme Court has consistently maintained that there should be an “intelligible differentia” that justifies the state’s favourable treatment of one group over another. Allegiance to the ruling party’s agenda surely fails this test.

On corruption, it failed to move towards instituting transparent processes or reducing practices of discretion, preferring showy sting operations instead. Most troublingly, its law minister’s moral policing, and the AAP’s insistent and self-righteous defence of it, showed up the party’s disregard of due process and its tendency to go with an illiberal majority consensus rather than defend human rights. Instead of tilting the state towards becoming more accountable and non-arbitrary in various areas, the AAP simply claimed that it knew best. And anyone who critiqued its decisions and actions was placed on a steadily lengthening list of the Corrupt.

I’m no big fan of the BJP or the Congress. But the method, timing and motivation behind Kejriwal’s resignation raise suspicion. If this abdication of power was not on the docket, then why did the AAP not seek a vote from the electorate like it did when it assumed power? Also, it can be well argued that now since Delhi is no longer their concern, it will give them ample amount of time to prepare for the 2014 Lok Sabha elections. Given the time and the resources they had, maybe this is the best Kejriwal could have done. It was a well planned, shrewd, morally arguable and politically right decision.

 It is ironic that even after becoming a nationalised political party, the AAP still chooses to be anti-system with the ideology of undermining the system. But instead of taking to the street, the Aam aadmi Party should head for a recourse for it is democracy not mobocracy. The romance of campaigning is being courteously swapped away by reality of governance. AAP is being populist and not pro people and it cannot afford to conflate the two this electoral season. How to combine an anti-system impulse with governance will remain the AAP’s fundamental political dilemma.