One party, too many experts: Will AAP be reduced to a federation of NGOs?

New Delhi: Is it lack of internal democracy or too much freedom within the party that has thrown the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) into a struggle for survival? The latest barb that hit the party’s convener and ex-chief minister of Delhi Arvind Kejriwal came from AAP patron and one of its founding members, Shanti Bhushan. In quitting the party several bigwigs have accused Kejriwal and the AAP of being “autocratic, lacking internal democracy and functioning in a non-transparent manner”. They have said it is a coterie that takes all decisions. The common denominator of all allegations and criticisms has been “lack of internal democracy” However, a deeper analysis of the party’s functioning reveals that more than the autocratic attitude of a coterie, it is too much freedom and the footing of equality allowed to its members, at least the elite ones, that has caused greater damage to the party’s credibility. AAP emerged as a party where almost all members at one point of time, especially prior to Delhi assembly election in 2013, acted as party spokespersons (read arbitrarily). It was as though nobody wanted to miss an opportunity to air an opinion or grievance in public, especially in front of the TV cameras. [caption id=“attachment_1674061” align=“alignleft” width=“380”]  Pallavi Ghosh/Firstpost[/caption] Some AAP old timers feel that Kejriwal should have restricted giving a free hand to its members when it came to making public statements. “I think there’s an excess of internal democracy and freedom within the party, and probably no other political party gives so much freedom to its members,” said a senior member in AAP’s political affairs committee, who didn’t want to be identified. The member cites a couple of examples to justify how ‘democratic’ AAP is and how its leader Kejriwal played soft with its prominent members even after their ‘irresponsible action’ or embarrassing statements which became public: * Initially, Arvind Kejriwal had decided to contest on a few Lok Sabha seats, but it was these members who convinced him to go for 400 plus seats. * One of the founding members and prominent faces of AAP, Shazia Ilmi triggered a controversy with her statement that “Muslims are too secular and they would have to be communal”. Despite this she was allowed to stay in the party and contest the Lok Sabha polls. * After becoming chief minister, Kejriwal took a close associate of his to the Secretariat and gave him the responsibility to head the grievance cell. Later, the same person was found protesting against Kejriwal at Jantar Mantar. * Capt GR Gopinath, who voluntarily became an online member of AAP, later hopped from one TV studio to other to speak against the party and its modus operandi. The problem with this new-born party began with the very background of its members, who came from different fields with no political experience. They were all experts or leaders in their respective domains - be it IT, academics, social activism, corporate sector, think tanks or media. No one was less than the other in terms of achievements. There were bigwigs like social activist-cum-founding member of Narmada Bachao Andolan Medha Patkar; CEO of Royal Bank of Scotland Meera Sanyal; pioneer in the low-cost airline sector in India, Capt GR Gopinath; former diplomat Madhu Bhaduri; board member of Infosys, V Balakrishnan; or former CEO of NDTV and Star, Sameer Nair. And, then there was the father-son duo, Shanti and Prashant Bhushan, who are eminent lawyers, and psephologist and former UGC member Yogendra Yadav. Amid all these heavyweights, Kejriwal’s role as a leader was relatively dwarfed. What the party needed was someone who was “first among equals” to emerge the unquestionable leader of the political party. This did not happen. “There’s no other political party in India as democratic as AAP, and there’s no nepotism within the party. The fact is experts from different fields joined us and it takes time to bond and work cohesively, which didn’t take place initially. The party is undergoing a process of evolving towards maturity,” says senior AAP leader and former minister Manish Sisodia. Guarded and restrained in his statements, Sisodia admits that the party gave a lot of freedom of speech to its members, which might have dented the party someway. But, he is optimistic that over a period of time the members would be able to act in a more responsible fashion and function according to party guidelines. “Since several AAP members are super successful in their respective fields, they presume they can say whatever they feel, which is not possible and never acceptable in any political party. As a result, there’s clash of egos as well. Moreover, majority of members are heading NGOs, so their style of functioning is more autonomous and individualistic, and excess freedom is causing problem,” observes political commentator Jagdish Upasane, who’s closely following AAP’s functioning since its inception. Economist and former advisor to the government, Arvind Virmani in his column Policy Analysis points out, “Given the background of the original leaders (as well as of the prominent personalities they are trying to attract into the leadership) in the NGO sector, they share the micro-specialized approach of these NGOs. They usually lack an understanding of broader macro issues and often act betray (sic) a self-centered arrogance towards other equally well -meaning experts! There is thus a serious danger that the AAP will rapidly deteriorate into a Federation of NGOs”. To be fair to AAP, it does not have any precedence in India’s politics to borrow lessons from. No other political party was formed the way AAP was formed, except perhaps, the Indian National Congress in 1885 when the leading brains of the time had come together to lay its foundations. But the INC too underwent a quick evolution to metamorphose into a party that was way different from its original; its successor over the decades – the Congress today – is very different in character. “Apart from lack of democracy, the reason for dissent within the party was that Kejriwal ignored the grass-root workers and volunteers, once the elites started joining the party after the Delhi election. He should have given a patient hearing to these people who actually formed the base of AAP,” says Rakesh Agarwal, secretary of Nyaybhoomi, an NGO, who was closely associated with Kejriwal for 14 years.