Not quite the party with a difference?
15 April 2015 3:45 AM IST
The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) was meant to be a political party with a difference. The people of Delhi, who voted for it in droves, had wanted AAP to live up to that promise. However the orgy of leaked internal communication and sting operations in the past month – one of them including the Delhi chief minister, a seemingly mild mannered and courteous Arvind Kejriwal, abusing senior party members, albeit in private – has left a bitter aftertaste for the city-state’s citizens.
The issue at hand was Kejriwal’s decision to get rid of two of his most recognisable party members, Prashant Bhushan and Yogendra Yadav. The reason was simple. They (Yadav and Bhushan) reportedly wanted the party to function in a more democratic manner. The rest, as we know, is history, though Yadav and Bhushan still continue to remain in the party. They have called for a party convention on April 14 of those who believe that the party’s governance arm should be separated from its functioning.
Having said that, let us examine the trends that have emerged from this episode since the party’s inception. The AAP promised a style that would set it apart from the political parties of yore, the Congress and BJP. The plank on which AAP emerged was based on a clear position. The party first lead a movement against financial corruption. It held an appeal for the middle classes on that issue, especially after UPA II’s massive malfeasance.
For the urban underclasses, their (party members) history of non-governmental activism held out the promise that they would be finally heard in the circles of political power. This proved to be a winning combination for the party and it stormed back to power after an earlier forty nine-day stint at the State government secretariat. The past month’s episode has clearly underlined the dividing line between characteristics that initially set it apart and a culture of feudal behavior that Indian politics has always been afflicted with.
When AAP appeared on the political firmament, its leaders had sent a message down the rank and file, besides the electorate, that it is not a political body that had a pre-defined ideology. Party leaders went onto suggest that they would not seek to fit the needs of Delhi’s citizens into a pre-determined structure. Instead, they would be the problem solvers – a post-20th century political phenomenon that seems to be sweeping the world, where the former orientations of ideology, especially of the Left seeking political power, are becoming unacceptable to newer generations that have witnessed a neo-liberal economic philosophy sweeping through.
These new political groups sought to break down the privileges of the pre-existing upper classes, and create a system of economic redistribution that neo-classical/neo-liberal economic theory thought the market would provide. The Washington Consensus of late-20th century sought to have the Western form of liberal democracy riding on this economic system.
The strong appeal of these ideas, based on a propagandist campaign of the global media, went through a cycle of success till the economic meltdown of 2008. Since then, new experiments with post-2008 political alignments have given birth to the Syriza in Greece and Podemos of Spain. They, like the AAP, are rainbow coalitions of the fragmented Left and are experimenting with being solution providers.
Politics, however, is more than just that. Politics is an expression of people’s urge to create a socio-economic milieu where irrespective of class divides, there is mobility and dynamism and opportunities to grow. For such milieu to exist, there is a need for structured ideas, which constitute a strategy to launch political struggles against the multi-layered and multi-faceted, deeply ideological assault of the rich and privileged.
Arvind Kejriwal, considering himself free from the leftist Prashant Bhusan and a socialist Yogendra Yadav, has shown his hand first by the possible decision to privatise the Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC). Though the news could be speculative – and Kejriwal may deny the existence of the plan – it is a classic case of testing the waters through the media before taking a decision, which will probably create a storm of controversy among the lower classes. Is this the slow unpacking of Kejriwal in the mould of the older politicos? A glimpse of which was seen in the way he dealt with the internal, largely ideational feud of the party.
The issue at hand was Kejriwal’s decision to get rid of two of his most recognisable party members, Prashant Bhushan and Yogendra Yadav. The reason was simple. They (Yadav and Bhushan) reportedly wanted the party to function in a more democratic manner. The rest, as we know, is history, though Yadav and Bhushan still continue to remain in the party. They have called for a party convention on April 14 of those who believe that the party’s governance arm should be separated from its functioning.
Having said that, let us examine the trends that have emerged from this episode since the party’s inception. The AAP promised a style that would set it apart from the political parties of yore, the Congress and BJP. The plank on which AAP emerged was based on a clear position. The party first lead a movement against financial corruption. It held an appeal for the middle classes on that issue, especially after UPA II’s massive malfeasance.
For the urban underclasses, their (party members) history of non-governmental activism held out the promise that they would be finally heard in the circles of political power. This proved to be a winning combination for the party and it stormed back to power after an earlier forty nine-day stint at the State government secretariat. The past month’s episode has clearly underlined the dividing line between characteristics that initially set it apart and a culture of feudal behavior that Indian politics has always been afflicted with.
When AAP appeared on the political firmament, its leaders had sent a message down the rank and file, besides the electorate, that it is not a political body that had a pre-defined ideology. Party leaders went onto suggest that they would not seek to fit the needs of Delhi’s citizens into a pre-determined structure. Instead, they would be the problem solvers – a post-20th century political phenomenon that seems to be sweeping the world, where the former orientations of ideology, especially of the Left seeking political power, are becoming unacceptable to newer generations that have witnessed a neo-liberal economic philosophy sweeping through.
These new political groups sought to break down the privileges of the pre-existing upper classes, and create a system of economic redistribution that neo-classical/neo-liberal economic theory thought the market would provide. The Washington Consensus of late-20th century sought to have the Western form of liberal democracy riding on this economic system.
The strong appeal of these ideas, based on a propagandist campaign of the global media, went through a cycle of success till the economic meltdown of 2008. Since then, new experiments with post-2008 political alignments have given birth to the Syriza in Greece and Podemos of Spain. They, like the AAP, are rainbow coalitions of the fragmented Left and are experimenting with being solution providers.
Politics, however, is more than just that. Politics is an expression of people’s urge to create a socio-economic milieu where irrespective of class divides, there is mobility and dynamism and opportunities to grow. For such milieu to exist, there is a need for structured ideas, which constitute a strategy to launch political struggles against the multi-layered and multi-faceted, deeply ideological assault of the rich and privileged.
Arvind Kejriwal, considering himself free from the leftist Prashant Bhusan and a socialist Yogendra Yadav, has shown his hand first by the possible decision to privatise the Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC). Though the news could be speculative – and Kejriwal may deny the existence of the plan – it is a classic case of testing the waters through the media before taking a decision, which will probably create a storm of controversy among the lower classes. Is this the slow unpacking of Kejriwal in the mould of the older politicos? A glimpse of which was seen in the way he dealt with the internal, largely ideational feud of the party.
Next Story
