The AAP, which started as a collection of eminent loose cannons, is now morphing into an entity cast in the image of one in which The leader is supreme and the rest of the lot have to nod in consent all the while
The rather unseemly turn of events at the Aam Aadmi Party should have surprised only the starry-eyed political tenderfoot without much clue to the ways of the world or the practice of, as Otto von Bismarck described politics, the art of the possible. To the politically canny, the unfolding of the squalid story has been, with apologies to Gabriel Garcia Marquez, a chronicle of a split foretold. It began at the beginning. That the ride ahead was going to be geared to the pursuit of power was clear from the formation of AAP from the Anna Hazare-led movement against corruption which shunned party politics. Those, like Mr Arvind Kejriwal, who formed the AAP, apparently believed that eradication of corruption and the crafting of a lokpal according to their blueprint, could not be done without political power.
Here was the first mistake. India already has a large number of parties professing the noblest of ideals and their resolve to serve the people truly and tirelessly, observing the highest level of integrity. Unfortunately, their ideals remain window-dressings as their professions have little to do with practice. Administrators at different levels throughout the country regard the public as legitimate targets of extortion and those holding public offices consider these as legitimate instruments of self-aggrandisement. Far from seeking to change things, a large number of politicians join the plunder, sometimes leading from the front.
The brazenness with which they do it springs from the fact that very rarely has any one of them been brought to book. As a result, a feeling of invulnerability and unaccountability has come upon all involved in governing the country from the political and the top bureaucratic to the lowest administrative, levels. An environment of strict accountability, which will deter all practitioners of graft and shirkers of work, is what is needed, and not another political party seeking power, however strident and millennial its rhetoric.
The reason for saying this is simple. The process of acquiring power has its own logic. It requires alliances, promises, concessions to individuals and groups and pretending not to see certain things. All this calls for flexibility and adaptability, which, over a period, becomes an increasingly dominant part of one’s psyche, and comes to characterise ones attitude to governance and corruption as well, turning a crusader into a temporising ‘pragmatist’. The harsh fact is that power has be acquired and exercised in a certain environment which limits both its nature and use. Beneficiaries of corruption constitute a very strong segment in an overwhelmingly corrupt society, and will try their utmost to reverse any operation clean-up.
One can argue that such elements can be isolated and taken care of given the will and capacity. This is easier said than done. They are often too strongly entrenched in key positions to be dislodged. Second, the consequences of exercising power can erect road blocks. People generally quote a part of lord Acton’s famous statement, “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” The rest of it reads, “Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority; still more when you superadd the tendency of the certainty of corruption by authority.” One can debate whether great men “are almost always bad men” but not the corrupting influence of power, particularly since the flesh is often weak even when the spirit is willing to resist.
Corruption need not be financial alone. It can involve the use of corrupt means — slander, false promises, blackmail, intimidation, or unscrupulous alliances — to keep a rival out of power. In this sense its seeds are inherent in any organisation —political parties included — with a leader or leaders and aspiring ones out to supplant them. Also, a war on corruption or any other social evil can only be won if the environment becomes overwhelmingly favourable to it, which, again, can happen only through implementing a multi-dimensional strategy, of which a surging mass movement is a critical component.
The counter-argument will be that a mass movement too can witness an unscrupulous scramble for leadership, particularly since the latter exercises power over the followers and over a large section of the society affected by the movement in the form of strikes and demonstrations. leading a demonstration or bringing life to a standstill in a city gives one an extremely satisfying sense of power, which not only provides a feeling of intoxication but acts as an antidote to an individual’s feeling of insecurity.
Erich Fromm explains the latter aspect in his landmark work, Fear of Freedom, in which he points out that a feeling of insecurity comes over people as they grow up from infancy, where they are cocooned in the safety of their mother’s world, to adulthood, and become progressively more aware of the dangers that stalk them at every step. Ideally, this sense of insecurity should be overcome by relating to the world through creative work and ties of love. But many fail to do so and sink into sadism, which involves deriving a sense of power and security by physically and psychologically dominating an individual or a group, which leadership of a mass movement enables one to do. Others sink into masochism, which involves surrendering one’s will and judgement to a superior entity — a movement, an individual leader or a perceived divine entity. This provides not only a feeling of security from the protection the superior entity offers but freedom from making judgements oneself and the attendant fear of going wrong.
With honourable exceptions, most leaders of mass movements tend to be sadists — with Hitler and Benito Mussolini being extreme examples. like political parties, mass movements can also be vitiated by no-holds-barred internal struggles for power. A mass movement, which can contain these and is not undermined by these, can serve a useful purpose if it aims at creating awareness and generating collective action to achieve social and political goals. Once it becomes a political party the logic of exercising power in the wider context compounds its internal power struggle by external factors. This was waiting happen with the AAP, which started as a collection of eminent loose cannons and is now morphing into an entity cast in the image not of an ordinary political party but of one in which The leader is supreme and the rest have the right to advise and consent.