Two years of AAP

There is little to distinguish it from any other party

All Indian political parties claim to speak for the people. The Aam Aadmi Party marks itself out by claiming to speak for only the common people. The very name of the party carries with it this promise of representing the common man and the common man only. In choosing to call itself thus, the founders of the AAP were also making an implicit critique of the other existing parties. It was the belief of its founders that the other political parties were elitists and were all tainted by the tar of corruption. The AAP was expected to be different in ideology and in the kind of people who became part of its leadership. It was this promise that drew people from various sections of the population to this new political formation. Its supporters wanted to make a difference to the practice of politics in India. Politics under the AAP was expected to be clean, transparent and consistently in favour of the interests of the man on the street. It was this inspiring, if challenging, promise that pitchforked the AAP on to the national stage. It went on to sweep elections in Delhi — winning 67 of the 70 seats — and has now administered the national capital for two years.

Two years in office is enough time to make an initial evaluation of the performance of the AAP and on the delivery of the promises it made at its birth. The first and perhaps the most important point to note is that from a party under whose flag many flocked, the AAP has become a one-man party. The AAP is now unmistakably identified as the party of Arvind Kejriwal. The party of argumentative Indians has morphed itself into the party of the authoritative Indian. The AAP, when it first emerged on the Indian political scene, attempted the practice of direct democracy. All decisions, the AAP advocated, should be and would be by all the people. Delhi would become like Periclean Athens. The impracticality of this soon became apparent and the AAP now functions like any other political party under the guise of indirect or representative democracy.

The AAP was born with the birthmark of populism. It aspired to make a difference to the lives of the common people. The leadership of the AAP believed that it could do so by subsidising the costs of the items essential for a minimum decent living. It sought thus to provide free water, electricity and milk to the common people of Delhi. There was no attempt made to understand where the money for all these would come from. As the AAP tried to put its rhetoric to practice, it came to  realise the hard realities of decision-making. Nothing, the AAP became aware, could ever be provided free and there were limits to how much even a government could spend. Even its campaign against corruption has lost some of its edge and urgency. It is difficult now to exactly pinpoint where the AAP and the government it runs in Delhi are different from any other political party and the governments they run. It would be simplistic to put this down to a failure on the part of the AAP. The transformation of the AAP is also a commentary on the power of the Indian political system to tame a newcomer and a maverick.