I am not a political expert, but a volunteer who devoted some of his time towards the cause of Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), remotely. So these views can best be taken as, by someone who has been a keen follower of Indian politics for last few decades, and tries to keep an eye on world politics often. I will keep them very short, promise!
(Mr. for all names in the post below)
The birth:
AAP was born out of a mass movement, wherein a chunk of people believed that the system can be more readily changed by being a part of it... more so by being in the hot seat of power. It was and is lead by a person who has been in the thick of mass struggles for at least the past decade... Arvind Kejriwal (AK). AAP was also joined by demagogues and ideologists such as Yogendra Yadav and Prashant Bhushan. Their experience inclines more towards the intellectual side ('should be' side of party affairs rather than the 'get it done' side).
The conflict:
I strongly believe that AAP leaders are not a breed that seeks personal gains. I believe the real conflict is not between personalities or different core principles. Rather it is between priorities. One side (AK et al.) wishes to get power (predominantly in a clean way), get on with doing things for the masses and keep on working at improving the processes to meet the core principles. The other side (YY & PB et al.) prioritises on implementing the rule book from the word go, and after doing so... if it obtains power, is willing to work for the masses. Otherwise it is happy to agitate and work from outside the power corridors. The first side prioritises on wining elections even if it has to compromise a bit...(not a lot..to keep DNA intact) on some of the principles. Whereas, the second side does not prioritise on winning elections at the cost of compromising principles at all.
Who is right?
Both sides are right and wrong, depending on how you see it. No one side will survive without adopting the other side's priorities at some stage. It is a matter of making proper systems so that the good points of each side are not lost.
An example from history
There are probably many, but I can recall one from recent past which has atleast conceptual similarity to present AAP crises.
The 'historic blunder' by CPM. Jyoti Basu (JB) and Harkishan Singh Surjeet (HSS) were willing to take PM post, after third front seemed to be able to form a Govt. JB and HSS wanted to demonstrate by their actions in power what they could achieve, but the central committee (all powerful body) of CPM overruled them. The reason was similar, rules of complete power superseded and they decided against forming the Govt. That paved the way for HD Deve Gowda as PM. The present situation of CPM is that it is on downward spiral since then. There can be many reasons for that, but I believe that the 'historic blunder' surely contributed or set the path as ideology became too heavy to handle and 'agitators' were sidelined completely.
Conclusion
Perhaps too simplistic, but I like to keep it simple.
When movements are on crest, 'ideologues' try to take lead and show the way forward with absolute commitment to rules, forgetting that it is the agitators who have lead the way till now. 'Agitators' can lose the way if they lose sight of the goal and start to compromise on the core principles. If any lessons are to be learnt from the recent history and given the present societal structures, I believe this time around 'agitators' need to lead with their actions for masses, and a constant, transparent effort to improve the systems that will prevent them from making compromises on core principles. Ideologues will have to take the back seat, but keep a constant watch. It is still a win win situation, just that true to its DNA, AAP can do this in a non traditional way and let 'agitators' lead the way, with 'ideologues keeping a close watch.
@docvatsa
13.03.2015
Ref: Historic Blunder
Comments are welcome below, for a constructive discussion.
(Mr. for all names in the post below)
AAP was born out of a mass movement, wherein a chunk of people believed that the system can be more readily changed by being a part of it... more so by being in the hot seat of power. It was and is lead by a person who has been in the thick of mass struggles for at least the past decade... Arvind Kejriwal (AK). AAP was also joined by demagogues and ideologists such as Yogendra Yadav and Prashant Bhushan. Their experience inclines more towards the intellectual side ('should be' side of party affairs rather than the 'get it done' side).
The conflict:
Who is right?
Both sides are right and wrong, depending on how you see it. No one side will survive without adopting the other side's priorities at some stage. It is a matter of making proper systems so that the good points of each side are not lost.
An example from history
There are probably many, but I can recall one from recent past which has atleast conceptual similarity to present AAP crises.
The 'historic blunder' by CPM. Jyoti Basu (JB) and Harkishan Singh Surjeet (HSS) were willing to take PM post, after third front seemed to be able to form a Govt. JB and HSS wanted to demonstrate by their actions in power what they could achieve, but the central committee (all powerful body) of CPM overruled them. The reason was similar, rules of complete power superseded and they decided against forming the Govt. That paved the way for HD Deve Gowda as PM. The present situation of CPM is that it is on downward spiral since then. There can be many reasons for that, but I believe that the 'historic blunder' surely contributed or set the path as ideology became too heavy to handle and 'agitators' were sidelined completely.
Conclusion
Perhaps too simplistic, but I like to keep it simple.
When movements are on crest, 'ideologues' try to take lead and show the way forward with absolute commitment to rules, forgetting that it is the agitators who have lead the way till now. 'Agitators' can lose the way if they lose sight of the goal and start to compromise on the core principles. If any lessons are to be learnt from the recent history and given the present societal structures, I believe this time around 'agitators' need to lead with their actions for masses, and a constant, transparent effort to improve the systems that will prevent them from making compromises on core principles. Ideologues will have to take the back seat, but keep a constant watch. It is still a win win situation, just that true to its DNA, AAP can do this in a non traditional way and let 'agitators' lead the way, with 'ideologues keeping a close watch.
@docvatsa
13.03.2015
Ref: Historic Blunder
Comments are welcome below, for a constructive discussion.
Thanks for sharing this! Here's a similar perspective from my end: http://nikhilsheth.blogspot.in/2015/03/can-aap-supporters-move-beyond-single.html Can AAP Supporters move beyond single-person politics? Can we transition to Multiplayer Team Mode? If we do, then both focussing on Delhi and growing national movement become equally doable, by independent but collaborating leaderships
ReplyDelete