In a coalition era, a party cannot insist that it will form a Government only if it is elected with a full majority. It makes no practical sense and does not take the ground reality into consideration. The stance also smacks of political obstinacy and inflexibility
The country is going gaga over the unexpected performance of the Aam Aadmi Party in Delhi. From the media coverage, it appeared as if the election results in three major Indian States, including a landslide in Rajasthan and a hat-trick in two other States, were sidelights. Undoubtedly, the AAP’s performance in less than a year of its existence was remarkable, that too for a party which was apparently not flush with funds and fielded mostly non-entities as its candidates. But to state that only the AAP got the people’s mandate in Delhi sounded as if aliens voted for the BJP, which emerged as the single largest party in Delhi.
Interestingly, according to statistics compiled by the Association of Democratic Reforms, seven per cent of the candidates fielded by the AAP had a criminal background. The AAP candidates also had average assets of Rs 2.51 crore. Statistics for other parties in the fray were worse, but then for a political party which labels only itself as honest, this is not something to be proud of.
The brouhaha surrounding the AAP’s victory also seemed to be a calculated move to deny the ‘Modi factor’ in the Assembly elections. While prior to the poll outcome, the yardstick for Mr Narendra Modi’s popularity was the BJP winning all the States, overnight the arguments changed. The credit for winning Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh was solely given to the respective Chief Ministers while the Modi effect, if any, was a little bit conceded to in Rajasthan, as Gujarat was a neighbouring State. Perhaps, critics are unaware that Madhya Pradesh also shares borders with the Modi-ruled State.
This is not to underestimate the key role played by these Chief Ministers, who themselves have acknowledged Mr Modi’s contribution towards their victory. The fact remains that but for Mr Modi’s intensive campaigning in the national capital in the last few days, Delhi would have gone the AAP way and the BJP would not have emerged as the single largest party.
Another fallacious argument being dished out is that the BJP did not win in many of the constituencies where Mr Modi addressed public meetings. People from all over, particularly neighbouring constituencies, participate in large numbers in constituencies addressed by national leaders of all political parties, but that does not mean their popularity can be gauged by the electoral performance in the constituency they address. It would be like expecting people in the walled city of Delhi to vote for a political party just because its national leader addressed a gathering at the Ramlila Maidan.
Again, eulogising the AAP’s refusal to form a Government is reflective of an anarchist and mobocratic mindset. People either vote for or against a party. Clearly, the vote in Delhi was a vote against the Congress, which explains the vengeance with which the party was routed and reduced to a single digit. There cannot be a more misleading argument than that the vote for the AAP was against both the Congress as also the Opposition. Since when have citizens in a democracy started voting against the OppositionIJ The mandate, in fact, was for both the BJP and the AAP. The voters who voted for both the parties were against the Congress. While a sizeable section voted for the BJP under Mr Harsh Vardhan, another major chunk voted for the AAP. The AAP’s own internal survey, which projected 40 odd seats for the fledgling party, also showed that most of the youth who voted for Mr Kejriwal’s party in Delhi also mentioned Mr Modi as their preferred choice for the post of Prime Minister. Thus, the voters of the two parties were not mutually antagonistic. In a coalition era, to insist that a party would form a Government only if elected with a full majority, reflects not only immaturity but also misplaced arrogance and an anarchist tendency.
Mr Kejriwal should know that issue- based political outfits have not lasted for long. While corruption undoubtedly is a key debating point, governance is much beyond just that. In the event of the AAP contesting the general election, the country would like to know what Mr Kejriwal’s stand is on issues related to internal security, international relations et al. One of the leaders of the AAP, noted lawyer Prashant Bhushan had once voiced his support to the separatist demand in Kashmir. India would like to know whether the AAP and Mr Kejriwal endorse this stand. likewise, one wishes to know what would be the party’s stand towards Pakistan, China, the US and on the issue of nuclear energy.
Political untouchability is another hallmark of the AAP brand of politics. To state that only the AAP is honest and the rest dishonest and treacherous, is totally incompatible with the spirit of democracy. It is in this country that Mr Atal Bihari Vajpayee referred to the victorious post-1971 war Indira Gandhi as goddess Durga and Jayaprakash Narayan involved even the then Jan Sangh cadres in his movement against the infamous Emergency.
Talking about his plans to contest against Congress vice president Rahul Gandhi from Amethi, AAP leader Kumar Vishwas said if he wins, it would be the victory of the people of Amethi and if he loses, it would be the defeat of the people of the constituency. This smacks of nothing but arrogance. Indeed, he is already ridiculing and questioning the wisdom of the common people.
The AAP’s stand that people voted for the BJP in Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh as there was no third alternative is reflective of either its ignorance or its self-righteous arrogance. Mr Arvind Kejriwal should know people today have the option of ‘none of the above’ on the electronic voting machines, which they could have very well exercised, as many voters did in the Bastar region of Chhattisgarh. Moreover, like in Rajasthan, they would never give a landslide win to any party if they had thought that both parties were the same.
Nevertheless, the AAP’s performance holds many lessons for other parties, particularly the BJP. From the ‘Bharat Mata ki jai’ slogan to the door-to-door campaign, the AAP’s volunteers have done what the BJP and the RSS cadres used to practice decades back. While Internet campaigning is the in thing, it would do the BJP lot of good if it goes back to the grassroots and rediscovers its core strength and style, and not become a copycat of some political parties in the West. Also, whether he means it or not, Mr Rahul Gandhi, for once, has diagnosed a problem with the Congress, which is equally applicable to the BJP — the need to not only connect with the common man but also enhance his involvement in the political process. The AAP’s message is all about empowerment and decentralisation.
It goes to the credit of the AAP that it has not only given a voice to the hitherto marginalised sections of the society but also restored the faith of a disillusioned populace in the electoral process.
(The author is a Senior Fellow and Editor with the Vivekananda International Foundation)