Backpage

NEGOTIATING a transition from being an inchoate, noisy and often fractious ‘movement’ to a ‘normal’ political party is, even under propitious circumstances, never easy. A government in Delhi – not a full-fledged state whose key functions, including land and law and order, remain under central control – any fair minded observer will admit, faces severe constraints. And when the Union government is also hostile, the situation becomes particularly vexed. Hardly surprising that the first year of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) government in Delhi is likely to be remembered more for its bruising confrontations with the Centre, reflective of an impetuous whimsicality, than a maturity demand by the extant political circumstances.

To contextually privilege political and administrative pragmatism over confrontation is not to undermine the importance of having to redefine, and hopefully rework, the politico-administrative arrangements in Delhi. It is also unfair to expect any popularly elected regime to meekly accept the reality of constrained and limited powers if it has to fulfil its promises. Nevertheless, the public spats with both the LG and the Union government over the power to appoint and remove officers, introduce legislation or set up commissions of enquiry with scant regard to due procedure and, worse, to accuse senior officials of working to undermine the state government, comes across as churlish. Equally, the many intemperate statements by its spokespersons only help deepen skepticism amongst those already unconvinced of its credentials.

Given this background, the AAP government’s handling of the controversial ‘odd-even scheme’, as also the ensuing public debate, with considerable dexterity and finesse is both surprising and welcome. It is worth reminding ourselves that despite the problem of air pollution with its damaging impact on public health being a long-standing concern, no previous administration had attempted to address it as a priority. The earlier Supreme Court directive to shift all state owned buses (DTC) from diesel to CNG, or phase out vehicles of a certain vintage – despite clear impact on ambient air pollution – was never followed up with additional measures. Similarly, the experiment with a Bus Rapid Transport (BRT) corridor, intend to shift commuters from private vehicles to public transport, despite its potential as a game-changer was permitted to flounder, if not sabotaged.

Few thus expected the experiment of imposing restrictions on private four wheelers to win as much public support as it did. The decision to link the initiative to public health ensured that even the political opposition was forced to be circumspect in its criticism, more questioning feasibility than intrinsic worthwhileness. But what proved a masterstroke was an intelligent public campaign, innovative use of volunteers to ensure greater compliance, attempts at popularizing car pooling, and so on, while simultaneously ensuring enhanced availability of both metro and bus transport – thereby generating lower than anticipated disruption. The decision to shut down all schools and commandeer their vehicles further increased availability and reduced demand. Finally, the decision to limit the experiment to one fortnight meant that those most likely to be adversely affected were more willing to adjust and not resort to measures like acquiring a false number plate if not another vehicle, choices they might have exercised had the period of restriction been longer.

Even though claims about the impact the odd-even formula made on air pollution are questionable, both because the period was too short to yield meaningful data and because vehicular pollution, more specifically by privately owned cars, constitutes only a small part of the problem, there is little doubt of the discernible difference to traffic congestion, a clear public good. Not only did the emphasis on public education, civic participation and voluntary compliance limit resentment, the initiative helped bring to centre stage both the importance of public health and the urgency with which we need to re-imagine and redesign commuting away from a reliance on private vehicles. Above all, it has created space for experimenting with more radical measures, which, if properly implemented, may help make the city more citizen friendly and liveable.

The AAP has to learn how to traverse the fine line between evolving as a party of responsible governance and a ‘movement’ aiming to alter the character of politics. Many of its initiatives – be they at the policy level or those designed to significantly enhance civic participation, particularly of hitherto neglected sections – hold great promise. As a young political formation, one which hopes to extend its influence beyond the NCR, it needs to first consolidate before seriously taking on more entrenched social forces. Just as meekly accepting current limits can prove self-fulfilling, so too can adventurism hasten destruction.

Harsh Sethi