Recently, the Times of India newspaper organized a debate on the topic "The new politics is good for opposition, not governance" wherein people like Aam Admi Party (AAP) spokesperson Yogendra Yadav, activist Aruna Roy and celebrity author Shobhaa De took on top politicians from established political parties like the Congress, BJP and CPI (M). This was a much needed debate given the importance of the issue at hand, which, as one of the panelist said could well shape the future of Indian politics. All of us are aware of recent events in India, particularly, the rise of the AAP and the new kind of politics that it has attempted to bring as an alternative to what the mainstream political parties have to offer. But the question arises as to whether such an alternative will be viable in the long run.
To recount, the AAP surprised not just the pollsters but established political parties by emerging as the second largest party and going on to form the government in Delhi after months of protests and campaigning for the Delhi Assembly polls. The AAP was able to create a wave across the country riding on the back of people's power and the deep felt need for change. However, its stint in government lasted just 49 days. The few days it was in power, the AAP government took some ground breaking steps, especially the attempt to take on corruption. It also made a sincere effort to do away with the VIP culture, Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal leading from the front. While these were some of the positives, the AAP's tenure in government was also marked by confusion and chaos. This has led many people questioning as to whether the AAP could govern and shoulder its responsibility towards governance. Some even termed the AAP's short stint in power as 'anarchic'.
It is against this backdrop that the relevance of the debate "The new politics is good for opposition, not governance" should be understood. Perhaps on hindsight the AAP could well be contemplating as to whether it has lost an opportunity to deliver where others before it had failed. Did it do the right thing by taking the unviable stand it took on the Jan Lokpal Bill, which eventually forced it to quit office after the Delhi Assembly, by a majority vote, rejected its position on the procedure to be adopted to get the bill passed. While the AAP no doubt had good intention, especially to fight corruption and bring changes to the system, yet it could not undermine the constitution. This is where it made an error of judgement, its confrontational approach on everything that was seen as obstructing its path.
The AAP Government in Delhi was simply not willing to go by the present system. The Kejriwal government could have been more patient, steady and considerate in its attempt to change the system. It is just not possible to turn the system around overnight. The very fact that Kejriwal and company had decided to enter electoral politics, one would have assumed that the AAP will work to bring change from within. The AAP was hugely successful in mobilizing public support to win an election but it had nevertheless failed to fulfill the role expected of it, to govern and bring about the desired change, which would have needed a more measured approach rather than a confrontational one that the AAP adopted. While the new kind of politics represented by parties like the AAP is good for the country, a balance or a middle ground will have to be found between its idealism and the reality of conventional politics that it seeks to change.
(Feedback can be send to consultingeditormex@gmail.com)
