As long as it was Anna Hazare, campaigning against rampant corruption involved at all levels of government administration in states and at the Federal level in addition to corruption within political class, I had actively supported the anti-corruption movement. But once Arvind Kejriwal broke away with Anna, and turned his supporters into an Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), I am a little skeptical about the fate of AAP! This skepticism arises mainly on the grounds of completely differing history, functions and role a pressure group and a national political party play in the political and administrative process of a nation. Political parties & Pressure groups Thinkers have defined a political party in different ways depending upon their purpose of commenting. Of all the definitions, I like here to begin by using a definition of political parties given by Edmund Burke, long back in 18th century. He saw political party as “a body of men united for promoting by their joint endeavours the national interest upon some particular principle in which they all agreed.” He further added that a politician is a “philosopher in action” who attempts to implement agreed principles through a set of programmes.
On the other hand, pressure groups have come up because existing political parties are perceived as having failed or not being able or unwilling to implement certain policies and programmes widely desired by people. In modern times in every democratic political system there are thousands of pressure groups. Some advocate interest of a profession like farmers, workers, and teachers so on; as the human societies look at many more issues as singularly important, like right to abortion or anti-abortion, anti-nuke or anti-corruption etc. These are called Public Action Committees (PACs) in the US. They have also developed in India. But I consider, here all these under single head—Pressure Groups. Pressure groups have their origin in movements to promote a particular cause or service or oppose a cause or issue.
Arvind Kejriwal was part of Anna Hazare’s movement against corruption and creation of an institution called Lokpal at the Federal and state levels. Among many who joined him like Baba Ramdeo, Kiran Bedi, Santosh Hegde etc, Kejriwal too was one. But after a long drawn movement that began with a bang on 4 June 2011, it ended in December 2012 because almost all political parties failed in varying degrees to realize the intensity of the national mood in favour of an anti-corruption ombudsman at the federal level as well as in states and failed to enact a Lokpal bill. Thereafter there was a split in the anticorruption movement where Kejriwal was in favour of turning the movement into a political party, and others favouring to continue as a movement. Thus, Kejriwal faction turned itself into a political party. Anna Hazare in a blog wrote that the anti-corruption group split due to politics within. He called path of politics as one of dirt.
For this, in retrospect, we cannot hold Kejriwal alone responsible, but the Congress with its rich experience in mud-slinging shrewdly challenged the prominent members of the movement to fight elections and get into power, then enact much talked piece of legislation to achieve their favourite anti-corruption regulator. Some of the choicest provocative utterances of two prominent leaders can be recalled here. Pranab Mukherjee, then finance minister, criticised civil society representatives saying that “unelected people were wielding extra-constitutional powers” and were “challenging” the role of democratically elected representatives. Another Congress leader, Manish Tewari had said: Democracy faces biggest peril “from the tyranny of the unelected and tyranny of unelectable!” (Emphasis added). Naturally, some of who were covered by him in the category of unelectable demonstrated that they are electable by turning the movement into a political party and winning 28 seats in Delhi. Ironically, with the support of the very “corrupt” forces of the Congress Party, now AAP has formed government in Delhi.
AAP members a confused lot
With power into pocket, Kejriwal & Co have developed national ambitions. However, the governing members of AAP after becoming a party are a confused lot. Some time they use the term movement to describe themselves, while other time they are behaving as some of the older national parties. Whenever a pressure group suddenly turns itself into a political party and also develops national ambitions, it is natural that their agreed original goal of one issue: anti-corruption and gaining an Ombudsman gets mixed with contradictions which come into open as they belong to different ideological moorings. Once pressure group becomes a national party in a federal polity it is bound to face glaring contradictions largely based on parochial emotions given birth by factors like regionalism, nationalism, caste, religion, language and ethnicity etc.
It is my contention that these contradictions within the AAP, will eventually force the party splits and resplits as other national political parties have suffered over the years, but will fail to replace any of the existing all India parties, if they at least now realise that they cannot afford to treat corruption as a necessary evil! What are these contradictions? First, Prashant Bhushan has already demonstrated the extreme difficulty he faces in suppressing his long held strongly communicated views, because they contradict equally strongly held views of a dominant majority in the country. Thus while he was a member of pressure group, he had said that Kashmiris have to be allowed the privilege of participation in deciding the future of Kashmir by a plebiscite. He was widely criticised and condemned by those who hold that the Jammu & Kashmir’s accession to the Indian Union is irrevocable.
That was strange for Bhushan, as even the greatest of plebiscite advocate in Kashmir in the past, the US, has long back given up that position. But even after pressure group turned into an AAP, he said recently that Kashmiris should be allowed to exercise referendum over Armed Forces Special Powers Act as they are demanding its revocation. There was agitation against Bhushan’s views and some Hindu group ransacked AAP office in Delhi. Kejriwal had to clarify and disown Bhushan’s views. If he was an ordinary member of the AAP, I am sure Kejriwal would have expelled him. But being the founder member and core-donor—one crore of rupees, must have been constrained, as of now.
Second, an ideal position on voter mobilisation is to consider all citizens as voters unbound by considerations of religion, caste, region and language or creed and appeal to them only on the basis of Party’s programme. Since AAP is a motley group agreed on anticorruption platform, Kejriwal had approached Bukhari to appeal to Muslims in Delhi to vote for his party prior to Delhi elections.
Recently, AAP’s national spokesperson, Sanjay Singh, said they plan to contest all 80 Lok Sabha seats in UP but his apprehension was “caste and religion-based politics would be our biggest challenge in UP…”. It is very clear as a policy AAP would not like to follow policies hitherto pursued by the Congress, BJP, BSP and SP in UP. Yet, in Mumbai AAP leaders, Mayank Gandhi and Gajanan Thakur met a group of Muslim activists and community leaders to increase its appeal among the Muslim community. Obviously calculation is that the Muslim community’s disenchantment with the Congress Party might help AAP in the elections in Maharashtra. Is it how Kejriwal’s AAP is going to clean the muck in Maharashtra politics?
Politics is not social work
Third, Power is the driving force of politics. Why do people get into politics? Not because, it is an arena for the excellent social work, but every politician wants to have a chunk of political power in the state or at the Federal level. Thus every politician thinks he governs the country! If anyone says he is not interested in power, he is not true to his feelings. Politics is not social work. One can do social work without getting into politics. Thus, there was unrest among a few supporters no sooner power came to AAP as they formed the government. This was evident in the rebellion of Vinod Kumar Binny, a migrant from Congress to AAP, and one who defeated then health minister, A. K. Walia. Though he was pacified by the party later, it was a proof of power politics as the sustenance of a political party. Others, who join AAP, see the AAP as a quick ladder to power.
Fourth, AAP has also to learn that if it is willing to continue to function as a political party, it has to accept the fact that coalitions are a fact of life. For next six months, it will survive with the Congress support. But from the house tops, AAP is proclaiming that it is unconditional. They have reserved the right to call the Congress ‘corrupt’; however at an appropriate time the Congress will withdraw its support. If AAP performs elsewhere in India, not as well as it did in Delhi, many of those who joined it are likely to walk out of it. Coalition means compromise; in politics power is more important than principles!
Is there a future for AAP?
No doubt that Kejriwal and his party have easily introduced several symbolic changes in Indian politics like getting rid of VIP culture. But certainly some of those things now rejected, are likely to come back even if not by Kejriwal’s sweet will, but by circumstances. If a security threat emerges to Delhi Chief Minister, security forces are bound to prevail upon Kejriwal. In Sweden for instance, there was no sentry posted at the entrance of the residence of PM in Stockholm. But after Palme Olof was assassinated in 1986, one sentry stands at the entrance of PM’s residence. But simplicity alone or willingness to be just like the ordinary people of India or the aam aadmi might serve to attract onlookers’ attention, but will not solve the nation’s ills. The issue of corruption has helped it in Delhi, it might also help it in Haryana; but surely not in all states. But the real issue is of inherent contradictions,which have already crept into the working of AAP. But electoral success in the other states will multiply contradictions in several folds. Let us assume that AAP comes to power in Maharashtra and Karnataka. Will the party be able to solve the issue of Belgaum? Will it be able to solve the conflict over Kaveri water issue between Tamil Nadu and Karnataka? Unlikely, even if it also forms federal government in Delhi.
Then the question arises what are the ideological moorings of AAP? If it wishes to be a national party, it cannot be a party of extreme right or left, but has to be a centrist party. Centre, is already occupied by the Congress and the BJP. In case it is able to replace one of the two, it might be a national party. But based on my understanding of Indian and American politics during the last 54 years, I feel it will be restricted to a regional party—what Americans call minor party or a third party.
AAP leaders follow the cap culture that the Congress started in the 1940s. They have given it long back with growing corruption. The Congress was challenged for Indira’s assertion that corruption is “an international phenomenon.” Her arrogance in playing with the Constitution coupled with corruption led to JP movement. Every one supported it. Janata Party was born out of it; but it disintegrated in less than a term of Lok Sabha! Vishwanath Pratap Singh fought against corruption of Rajiv Gandhi, built Janata Dal, but it too broke into pieces! There lies a lesson for Kejriwal!
[/column][column size=”4/5″]
Prof. P.M. Kamath
The writer is a former Professor of Politics, University of Bombay. Currently, he is Hon. Director, VPM’s Centre for International Studies (Regd.) and adjunct Professor, Department of Geopolitics and International Relations, Manipal University, Manipal.[/column]