Backpage

UNLIKE commentators who have characterized the resignation of the Aam Aadmi Party government following its ‘ failure’ to table and ensure the passage of its flagship Jan Lokpal and Swaraj Bills in the Delhi state assembly as a pre-orchestrated drama, a running away from the challenges of governance and so on, supporters prefer to read the move as a ‘principled’ act of renunciation, proof that Arvind Kejriwal and his colleagues are not hungry for power. They have also used the opportunity to reiterate their charges against the troika of political parties, bureaucracy and the corporate class, accusing them of not only being corrupt and anti-people but of working to entrench a political culture that favours a cosy club of the privileged and powerful. The AAP is portrayed as a David of integrity and courage taking on a Goliath-like corrupt establishment. Even more, the AAP is credited with changing the grammar of politics, both by vocalizing issues and targeting individuals usually covered by a veil of silence. In short, the AAP entry into the political scene is presented as facilitating an ‘opening out of and a deepening of democratic politics.’

Some of the arguments advanced in support of the AAP – both pronouncements and actions – do appear to have merit. It is difficult to deny that the AAP campaign generated a buzz and garnered support from a wide cross-section of citizens. Its eventual performance resulting in the formation of a (minority) government generated huge hope and expectations. Rarely has one witnessed a single state assembly garner so much media space. Equally significant was the swell in party membership following its electoral performance and decision to form government in Delhi.

It might be useful to try and understand some reasons behind this spurt of support. In substantial measure it was because the AAP promised a different politics – of courage and integrity, openness and transparency, a willingness to move beyond narrow identity concerns and, above all, to consult and involve the common citizen in crafting its politics. Minor glitches apart, many felt that the way AAP ran its campaign did reflect some of these attributes, possibly why its many charges against powerful individuals across political divides, even if not in particularly polite language, did not invite opprobrium.

What, however, is less examined was the expectation of a different governance promising different outcomes designed to enhance public welfare. Outcomes, to a large measure, depend upon how well institutions function, demanding a ‘less excited but sustained’ effort to bring all stakeholders together and ensure a buy-in for a different – open, accessible and responsive – style of functioning. Much of this best happens away from media spotlight. It is unclear, however, whether seeking to institute a different culture of governance was as important in the AAP schema as challenging and destabilizing the extant political culture. How else do we explain why, even after assuming office, the dominant mode of functioning of key AAP leaders, even ministers, privileged a confrontational, accusatory and agitational style over attempts at forging bridges across political divides and reassuring the bureaucracy without whose active cooperation little can happen?

Instead, the bureaucracy was sought to be ‘forced to fall in line’ with regular invocation of threats of punitive action and the public being invited to carry out ‘stings’ against officials seen as corrupt. Simultaneously, we were reminded, on a daily basis, of the questionable integrity of all politicians, bureaucrats and experts, unless otherwise certified as ‘honourable’ by AAP. This setting apart of ‘self’ as of moral virtue while castigating all others is hardly designed to inspire confidence in an executive charged with implementing programmes. Possibly this is why the AAP in campaign mode came across as somewhat more promising than in its performance in the seven week stint in power.

Forget the many, possibly questionable, decisions it took, even the manner in which AAP sought to introduce the Jan Lokpal Bill – the failure to do so leading to its resignation – demonstrated more a desire to provoke a confrontation than ensure its passage. Leaving aside constitutional niceties, how can the AAP defend its failure to widely circulate the draft bill for comments/ suggestions, if not to citizens then at least to the opposition, before seeking to table it. This, for a party claiming to be transparent and participatory, is unforgivable. Unless, of course, the argument is that the others, irrespective of the merits of the proposed legislation, would never give it a fair hearing. This may make for ‘good’ politics, signalling its distinctiveness, but hardly inspires confidence that a protest movement is maturing into a responsible party.

How these perceptions will play out in the run up to the impending elections is unclear. Possibly, the AAP would do well to pause and reflect before continuing with its present high risk strategy of brinkmanship.

Harsh Sethi